What China Wants

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XLIX, Issue 31, 10 August 1922, Page 11

What China Wants

Like the suicide of protest, still in vogue in China, the Secretary of the Chinese Delegation at the Arms Conference resigns in protest against “conditions that have arisen in the Conference,” and declares flatly that “governments and vested interests oppose" the liberation and regeneration of China, and her rehabilitation as a sovereign nation” (says the Literary Digest for December 17, 1921). Immediately after the secretary’s action came the resignation of China’s chief military adviser, her chief financial adviser, and her chief naval adviser and assistant director of customs. In fact, the Chinese question now holds the centre of the stage at the Washington Conference. Once the most enlightened and prosperous country in the world, China, in the words of the Cincinnati Enquirer, ..“is now the world’s bone of contention.” The United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, and four other nations recently subscribed to the principles outlined in the Boot resolution, thus declaring their intention to respect the sovereignty, independence and integrity of China; to provide it with an opportunity to develop a stable Government; to maintain equal trade opportunities for all countries, and to refrain from seeking special privileges which would abridge the rights of citizens of friendly States. “But China has heard all this before,” notes the Newark News. True, “if the eight Powers actually respect the {sovereignty of China, and so forth, the Conference will have removed once and for all the greatest obstacle to lasting peace that remains,” declares the Brooklyn Eagle, and “interpreted in a liberal spirit, the Root resolution would go far to solve the Chinese problem,” agrees the Springfield -Republican Many editors, in fact, hail the adoption of the Root resolution as a “Magna Carta for China,” but, we are reminded by the Boston Herald, “these principles are merely * general principles ’ upon which to proceed in the adjustment of details.” Furthermore, asserts Charles Merz in the New York World, “only the Pollyanna section of the press believes that China has gained a victory.” “Much of this talk of great gains for China is for consumption in China,” observes the New Haven JournalCourier. “Before the ink was dry on the Root proposals,” points out the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, “some of the parties subscribing to them in principle were in sharp disagreement as to their import in practise.”

“What China wants,” notes N the Sacramento Bee, “is nothing more than the right of self-determination, a right which cannot be denied a country with 400,000,000 people.” As the Washington Post puts it; “China has two cardinal needs—-First, a guaranty against further encroachments by an agreement among the Powers assembled at Washington; and second, an opportunity to recover the ground lost by previous encroachments on the part of the Powers.” “The sort of sovereignty which China now has is a mockery,” maintains the New York Evening 'Mail, Perhaps the Republic’s chief complaint is that it is not allowed to fix its own tariffs, and that while these are set at 5 per cent., they have in reality, according to the Chinese delegates, dwindled to 3£ per . cent. totally inadequate amount for carrying on .the Government. What China wants is to have the privilege, or, as the Evening Mail remarks, “to exercise the inalienable right of setting up such a 'tariff as will help to build up her own industries.” At present / this impost duty yields about $40,000,000 yearly; China would like to double it. And, as the New York World remarks: *

“The arguments of Mr. Wellington Koo for the restoration to China of the power to fix her own tariff cannot be ignored by the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions, or by the Conference itself, unless the talk about Chinese integrity and the Chinese nation is simple hypocrisy. There can be no such thing as Chinese sovereignty while the tariffs of China are regulated for her by other Powers; there can be no such thing as a solid and responsible Chinese Government until there is a Government in China that controls its own income.”

; “China’s • (revenues are so completely shackled by foreign treaties and agreements as to prevent that country going forward upon any financial domestic programme,” avers the Washington correspondent of the New York Times. “Her . loss from' restrictions . of various kinds amount to about 300,000,000 dollars yearly,’.?.• we are told,

“yet the revenues • could be . increased with the greatest ease if the Powers would consent to the abrogation of the treaties.” Customs receipts and railroad revenues, under the present agreements, are deposited in foreign banks, so that China banks gain little or nothing from this source of revenue. Then, too, says the Times correspondent, “all revenue from the salt mines, aggregating, perhaps, 45,000000 dollars gold annually, is placed in foreign banks.” China also wants extra territorial rights in that country abolished. Extraterritoriality, we are told, means the immunity of the foreigner .from Chinese law, and his right to trial by a foreign court and under foreign law. This, says a Chinese delegate, “infringes on China’s sovereign rights, and produces confusion in the courts.” The Chinese delegation, therefore, asks that the Powers now represented in the Conference relinquish their extraterritorial rights in China at th'e end of a definite period. Another infringement on China’s territorial and administrative integrity, avers a delegate to the Conference, is the “evil of the foreign postal system.” The Chinese charge that through these post offices, particularly those controlled by Japanese, opium is smuggled into China and the “cream of the postal business skimmed.” In Manchuria alone, say the Chinese, approximately 5000 chests of opium are distributed through Japanese post offices, China having no 'authority to inspect Japanese mail sacks. The Japanese Government, they aver, reaps 20,000000 dollars a year in revenue from this source.

The exclusion of Shantung from the agenda.' of the Conference is .a disappointment to the Chinese delegates; they would prefer to discuss the return of this province to China in the open. At this writing Japan has agreed, to waive all preferential rights with regard to foreign assistance, thus opening Shantung to the trade and investments of all nations. Japan has further restored the port of Isingtao to the Chinese maritime customs, the New York 1 rihline informs us, but the railroad from the Shantung peninsula, which the New York. Times considers the 1 core of the Shantung problem,” remains under Japanese control. And control of the railroad, say the Chinese delegates, carries with it political control of the whole province.

The maintenance of foreign troops in China is another sore point. As Frederick Palmer writes in the New York Evening Post, “Japan would have the open door of China guarded by a Japanese sentry”’ There are, moreover, said to be 27 Japanese police agencies in China, which, the Chinese delegates contend, should be withdrawn, China’s railways, it is said, are the principal source of, revenue, and it was because the consortium could be interpreted to give international control to China’s railmays, according to her ex-Minister of Finance, that China refused to accept it. United States officials, however, are hopeful that the consortium will be accepted by China, as one of the steps in the financial rehabilitation programme, after some objections have been eliminated. The chief technical adviser of the Belgian delegation, who spent 20 a ears in China, and is ,one of the pioneer railroad builders in that country, has this to say regarding China’s financial needs; — s Jso matter what is done for China by the Conference, she will remain under the tutelage of Japan unless she can obtain financial assistance of unprecedented magnitude from abroad to enable her to repay or make some new arrangements with regard .to the loans she received from financial groups in Japan during the years of the‘World War.” y V;

Although there is. mudi sympathy in the American press for China’s desire to control her own destinies, many editors declare that China’s own impotence in dealing with internal questions almost places the Republic beyond hope for the time being. “The failure of the Canton and Peking Governments to agree upon a delegation is the best proof of China’s impotence,” remarks the Brooklyn Eagle. “The country is torn by civil Aar, it has repudiated its obligations, its finances are utterly disrupted, and the Peking Government, which the Washington delegation represents, has but a precarious hold.” The French delegation, indeed, has asked the Chinese delegation with what authority they presume to speak for all China in disregard of the protests of the, South China Government at Canton, of which former* Minister Wu Ting Fang . is a leading • member. It is this Government,; notes the Phila-

delpliia Record, "which arraigns tho Peking authorities for subservience to Japan." ~". "To treat China as wholly free to run her business her own way would doubtless evoke praise as a great act of international morality," remarks the Baltimore .News, but, thinks the Norfolk Virginiarir-Pilot, "if China wishes to avoid foreign interference, she must first bring order into her own divided household." As for immunity to foreigners, "extraterritoriality obtains in China because of necessity," avers the Manchester Union. The Baltimore Neios says of China's financial problems : "The question of Chinese finance, which the Conference is now taking up, is infinitely complicated. Putting China on. her feet will involve something more than raising the customs tariff. "A strong financial administration will have to be secured in some way; if not by the Chinese, then with the aid and supervision of the other Powers. But if such an administration can be set up, the chances for future peace in the Pacific will have been vastly improved." Then there are the existing rights which China has guaranteed to friendly Powers. Of these PoAvers and their concessions the St. Louis Globe-Democrat says:

"Superficially the right thing to do would be for all of them to get out of China and leave her to manage her own affairs. But that is not easy. It may not he entirely possible. Many millions of dollars have been invested in China by public or semi-public agencies in. railroads and other developmental enterprises, and the disposition of these calls for consideration. Assuming the most sincere desire on the part of every Government to give China the fullest control of her own affairs and her own resources, there are difficulties in. the way of accomplishing this that may be immediately insurmountable." Lastly, observes the New York Journal of Commerce : . "What are the facts of the case? As reported by disinterested observers on the spot, a month ago, it was, briefly, as follows: Chinese bankers had declared that they were drained dry by the requirements of Peking and that unless the Government, could secure money to repay them, at least in part, there would be a grand financial collapse. "Peking officialdom had seen the situation coming for many months, but with characteristic obstinacy refused to admit it, and tried to hide the Government's real distress and utter helplessness by playing politics with an assumption of power and assurance. And now Peking is penniless and resourceless; a number of payments., on foreign loans are falling due, the Chinese banks are tottering, and the life of the Government itself is in imminent jeopardy. "If the Powers were weak enough to allow Peking to collect the customs revenue and the proceeds of the salt tax, there would be immediate default on foreign loans and confessed national bankruptcy. Of the sources of national revenue which remain in Chinese hands, like the land tax, 80 per cent, is consumed in the cost of collection and in the personal pickings and stealings of the collectors, while Peking gets a steadily diminishing share of the remainder. > - ' "It is an old story, and the only difference between the Republic and the Empire is that official graft is to-day more open, more impudent,'and less restrained than it was under the Manchus. Until a capable, honest, and generally respected and acknowledged Government can take hold of the finances of China, it is a mere waste of time to discuss questions of tariff autonomy.'