CHINA THROUGH CHINESE EYES.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3378, 13 June 1927, Page 8

CHINA THROUGH CHINESE EYES.

THE CHRISTIAN STUDENT MOVEMENT.

LONDON, April 5. Affairs in China are - moving so rapidly that any attempt to deal with current events would be out of date before this appears in print. What one can do is to try to got at the mind of the China of today and by understanding all arrive at forgiveness of all. And there is much to forgive, it would appear, in the events at Nanking last week, since there are Bol-shevik-creating tendencies here that are as dangerous as the Communist extremist in South China, and Mr J. L. Garvin did well on Sunday to say: “We hope there is to be no swerving from the Government’s policy in China.” The Tory “Saturday Review,” too, emphasises this: “We are not sufficiently enamoured of the Bolshevists to wish to give them material to use for propaganda against us, and it is highly important that Sir Austen Chamberlain should not allow himself to he discouraged

by the incidents of Nanking. The Chinese have never been known for their excessive gentleness, and we have, alas, too mony recent examples of atrocities in war, even among the most highly civilised peoples of the world, to allow our judgment to he distorted by heartrending tales of brutality.” ‘ .. ..

It is such a moment above all others to seek ’ first. hand information about Chino, and what its people are thinking, and this we can/ do in “China in Revolt,” just published by Noel Douglas, is the work of L. L. T’Ang, a graduate of London University. It is a trenchant indictment of the Powers who, having established their trading centres in China by force majeuro, have continued to treat China, an Empire as large as Europe and with a greater population than that continent, as an inferior people. Sir Austen Chamberlain need have no fear of his repute (is an enlightened statesman so long as his Memorandum of 1926 and its spirit survive. P>ut was it too late ? Mr T’Ang says: “At this juncture it may seem ungracious to cast doubt on the benevolent intentions of the British Government. The proposal, however, to supply additional funds to the reactionary war lords who already hold the main sources of the Customs’ revenues, by the ‘immediate unconditional grant of the Washington surtaxes,’ just at the tiine when the consolidation of China by the Nationalist Government is imminent, cannot but give rise to grave suspicions as to the real motives of the British Government who, almost simultaneously with the publication of the Memorandum, have sent additional warships to Chinn. Expressions of goodwill towards China are to the Chinese mind genuine only if they are accompanied by deeds, notably by orders for the withdrawal of foreign troops, warships and aircraft from China. These instruments of warfare serve no other purpose save only provocatively to remind Young China of the indignities she has suffered at the hands of the Imperialist Powers. They do not even overawe her, as’awar provoked by Great Britain would at once entail consequences of a far-reaching nature, such as the rallying of all the war loxds of China, including Chang Tso-lin, to the banner of the Koomintang, and the active intervention of Russia, and possibly of Japan, on China’s behalf.” Mr Bertrand Russell is, however, giving too little credit to our Foreign Secretary when in a foreword he says:— “Recent events in China have shown the extraordinary extent to which our Foreign Office has been misled as to the present state of public opinion in that country. Relying upon information from AngloChinese, who associate almost exclusively with Europeans, and are completely ignorant of the change that has come over China in recent years, ou .'.Government has refused until too late, to make concessions in response to the just indignation of the Chinese in the matter of the Shanghai massacre, or to abate in any degree the unscrupulous hostility displayed by Hong Kong towards Canton. The immediate result has been

an immense injury to British trade in China; the ultimate result is likely,'unless there is a complete change in our official attitude, to be a complete collapse of British interests in Chinn.” There is some truth in his statement and

Mr Russell is not going too far when he says of Mr T’Ang’s book that it contains “an indictment of Western policy, and morci particularly of the policy of Great Britain, which is as painful as it is irrefutable. Hitherto wo have treated Chinn with the injustice and brutality which invariably fall to the lot of the weak among nations; but the indignation aroused is at length putting an end to weakness, and enabling China to insist upon being treated as an equal. The sooner this is realised, the less disastrous it will be for ourselves.” Mr T’Ang is a realist and disarms us at once by making no pretence at being impartial. We can best give his own words: “In submitting the Chinese case for national liberty and independence, for international equality and justice, the author fully realises the fact that he is one-sided in that he is only stating his country’s best points and disregarding her weak points, or at best, seeing them in their true light, just as, for obvious reasons, foreign writers only very sparingly care to see the good things in the Chinese people, and then present them m a false perspective. The author realises that some of his statements and conclusions are liable to misconstruction. But bis very partiality should afford the unbiassed student of international affairs the material wherewith to form an independent and disinterested judgment on Chinese problems.” Mr T’Ang wrote all but the last chap- } ter of this book a year ago. He has brought it up to date in a final chapter. In it he once more emphasises the fact that China has changed out of all recognition in the last 15 years too. In his view too: “Since the Great War, and until the Washington Conference, Japan was considered as China’s most dangerous enemy, while the Anglo-Saxon nations were looked upon as the guardians of China’s quasi-in-dependence. The modern Chinese have a great respect for the country which taught the world the modern principles of liberty and democracy; they venerate the birthplace of the mother of Parliaments, the birthplace of Shakespeare, Locke, Byron, J. S. Mill and Bernard Shaw. They still believe that the British are a nation with an inherent sense of justice and fair play, who would view witli horror and indignation the acts of violence committed in their name in China —if only they knew the real facts. But, rightly or wrongly, in the Chinese view, British agents in China are reluctant to let the world know these facts. The Chinese recall to their minds that the Diplomatic Report of the Shanghai shootings was suppressed at the instance of the British Consul-General at

Shanghai, and that the British ConsulGeneral at Canton refused an inquiry into (lie Sluunecn massacre.”. . . Mr T’Aug believes tliat Japan is now inclined to come in with China.

“Internally,” he says, “this fundamental solution means a reconstruction of Chinese society on the principle of the people’s contiolol the machinery of government and of the moans of production and .distribution. Externally, it implies the necessity of a general and complete readjustment of China’s relations with foreign Rowers, instead of a readjustment on the ‘instalment plan,’ of a substitution for the Unequal Treaties of other treaties consistent with the real independence and sovereignty of China. “As to tlie internal aspect of the .solution, differences do exist among the Chinese leaders. The Nationalist Expedition against the allied militarists is not a civil war as between two rival militarist cliques

who ai e only out for their own ends, but it is essentially a popular attempt to consolidate China on the revolutionary principle; it is not so much a civil war as a revolutionary war for the destruction of militarism and imperialism.” “China To-day through Chinese Eyes,” published by the Student Christian Move-, ment shows as strong a belief in the future of China as Mr T’Ang’s book, although they are at variance on the religious issue. In this collection of papers by University men, the paper on the political outlook affirms strongly that militarism is dying; if not dead, that in spite of the apparent political chaos there is a spirit of unity steadily gaining strength. It affirms that military dictatorship was only possible when the people were kept in ignorance and that day has gone. Mr T. Z. Koo, of St. John's University, Shanghai, who is now touring New Zealand, contributes two chapters to this book. Mr Koo has worked actively for the Y.M.C.A. in Shanghai, and has been a representative of his country at Geneva at an opium conference. His views, therefore, are not those of a man who knows only his own country, for he has had contact with many nations. He writes of educational conditions and they undoubtedly have had more influence than -any other factor in the rebirth of China. It gives in the briefest outline the work of the Tung Men Hui, to whose heroic self-sacrifice is due the downfall of the Manchu and the establishment of the Republic in 1911. This work fell at first into the peaceful methods of education, but the Great War started it and the patriotic movement took a new turn. Japan’s Twenty-One Demands served to crystallise this patriotism into a movement. Towards Japan this movement expressed itself in the boycott, and in the country it watched closely those in high places who were suspected of too much friendship towards Japan. This period culminated in the May 4th Student Strike. The students were successful in their two immediate objectives, namely, to drive out the three national traitors ond to force the Government not to sign the Paris Peace Treaty. Then came the Nationalist period, in which the slogans were “Down with Imperialism,” “Down with Capitalism,” “Revision of the Un-Equal Treaties,” which are fermenting to-day. It is quits clear, from the analysis Mr Koo gives, that every colour of political belief exists among the students, the outstanding one being the Citizens’ Revolution Movement, under the influence of the Kuo Mingtang, of which Mr Koo gives the following programmes: Its Nationalistic programme is composed of the following articles: Recovery of foreign settlements.

Tariff autonomy. No quartering of foreign military and naval armies and police in China. Abolition of consular jurisdiction. Forbid the establishment of foreign mills.

Recover control of foreign schools. Forbid the propagation of religion by foreigners. Forbid foreign vessels in inland navigation. <

Confiscate foreign property not properly secured.

Anti-Imperialism Week, May 30 to June 5. Promote military training and student army. Federate with working men and farmers.

Educate the illiterates in China. Emancipation of women. Its Anti-Christian programme consists of the following: Christman anti-Christian week.

Close or take over Christian schools

Urge students to leave Christian schools Organise students for vacation anti Christian work.

Disrupt Christian organisations from within.

Forbid participation of Christian students in national undertakings. One cannot say that such a programme is other than legitimate. Mr Koo laments that students are largely anti-Christian, but adds; “This, however, must not be interpreted to mean that Chinese students, being irreligious, are also imrnoi’al. Compared with students in other countries, there is much less immorality among students in China. The centuries of moral training of the Chinese are m their favour in this respect.”