THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1927 CHINA’S COMPLAINTS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 209, 18 August 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1927 CHINA’S COMPLAINTS

rpHE see-saw of China's interna) X war is just now dipping badly against that section—probably much the bigger of the two—of the Nationalit Party which acknow ledges Chiang Kai-shek as its leader, find which some good time ago snifted its political headquarters from Canton to Nanking, some little distance up the Yangtsze. So badly has the recent fighting gone against them that there is talk of their having to abandon that town and retire at least to the southern side of the big river, and possibly a good deal further. It 's this latter contingency that gives particular jxiint to the action of General Duncan, commanding the British forces at Shanghai, in cutting the main south-running railway line under circumstances mentioned in one of to-dny’s cable messages. The position as it now stands between the warring factions f.<>es not give any fresh hope of the establishment of a central Government with which the foreign Powers might reopen di mission of their relations with China. In connection with existing relations, however, an interesting insight into them which is given by the Shanghai correspondent of a Sydney exchange serves to dispel some misconceptions that may have been formed with regard to them. Those to whom the China situation is of only vague interest, he says, do not trouble to inquire deeply into the causes which have led to the present impasse. Knowing this, the Nationalists have been working. overtime at propaganda designed to create an atmosphere favourable to themselves in foreign countries. The beliefs that they have sought—not without success—to impress upon those who accept the views of others without investigation may be set out thus ■ (1) Chinn is the victim of “unequal” treaties. (2) The presence of foreigners in China is the chief cause of thecountry s difficulties. (3) The con cesswiu uud settlement) were wrested

from China against her will, and should be returned to her as an act of elementary justice, (4) Rights of extraterritoriality were obtained by the foreigners by force majeure. ,5) Control of the Customs, Salt Ad ministration, and Posts were forcibly seized by the foreigner, and should he restored to China. (6) China possesses an adequate and modern judicial code and trained Judges, and therefore no excuse exists for extraterritoriality. These assertions have been made with such persistency that they have influenced, not only the sentimentalists, but even those responsible for the direction of the foreign policy of European countries and the United States. The catch-words “unequal treaties,” “aggressive Imperialism,” and so forth have been reiterated so often that they have had a bypnotte effect upon those who could, if they had taken the trouble, have been able to ascertain whether they had any justification in fact. The correspondent then goes on to dissipate in turn each of the fallacies Siat have thus gained ground, but space will not admit of our summarising more than the first three, which would seem to he the most important. With regard to the first we are told, in effect, that all treaties now existing between Chinege and foreign Powers are based upon the Treaty of Nanking between China and Great Britain, concluded in 1842, at the end of the so-called “Opium War.” The treaty was eminently just and equitable, and the war that preceded it was justifiable. China had for over one hundred years treated the British traders and nation in the most ferocious manner. Her only name for foreigners was “barbarian,” her communications were of the most insulting nature, British traders were not allowed to settle in China, no Chinese were permitted to be employed ”s servants, foreigners were not permitted to ride in chairs, or even to walk abroad. They were confined foa few months of the year in Canton, in wretched buildings, as virtual prisoners. Foreign officials were forbidden to address even the lowest Chinese officials. Britons were taxed without redress. They were, treated vuelly and with every imaginable insult and contumely. Conditions < f the most atrocious character obtained and were endured with unspeakable patience by foreigners. Conciliation and endurance only encouraged Chinese to acts of violence and savagery, as they are doing to-day As a result of the war foreign trader' 8 rights were put upon a proper basis, and the barren island of Hongkong—from which the Chinese Government derived no revenue—was ceded. The treaty simply confirmed foreign traders in rights ’that were essential in a country that regarded no rights but its own, and refused protection to those whom it op. pressed. With respect to the second complaint is is confidently declared that the presence of foreigners in China has been, and is, of incalculable value to China. Markets have been found for the products of China that the Chinese could never have found for themselves. Amenities of life have been vastly improved. Communications, though still leaving mucn to be desired, are infinitely better than they were before the foreigner came. Then, as to the third, the concessions and settlements were established by the express wish of China. So bitter was the dislike of the Chinese for the foreigner that the latter was refused permission to reside in Chinese cities, and supposedly worthless bits of land were leased to him in perpetuity. Those bits of land have been transformed into magnificent and—until the Nationalist blight spread—prosperous cities and towns. The foreigner was segregated as if he had been a leper—not because he demanded segregation, but because the Chinese insisted upon it.