IX

THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES

IN CHINA

THE policy of the United States in China is characterized by unselfishness and friendliness. Quite in vivid contrast with the other grasping powers who pounced upon China in the general scramble for leases in 1898, she kept her hands off and was able to withstand the temptation. On the contrary, she sought to uphold China's integrity and sovereignty and save her from partition. Throughout the negotiation for the settlement of the Boxer trouble, she opposed any proposal that would threaten to partition China and burden her with a load of indemnity that would make her the economic vassal of the Powers for years.1 To this effect Li Hungchang, who conducted the negotiation on behalf of the Chinese Government, testified: 2 "I tremble to think of what might have been China's fate but for the stand taken by the American Government." Subsequently, she returned part of the Boxer indemnity for the education of the young Chinese in America. Again, in the Currency and Industrial Development Loan, she undertook the contract upon the request of the Chinese Government, and to secure international coöperation and harmony, she shared it with the other powers and surrendered her right to an advisership in favor of the appointment of a neutral nationality. Finally, during the Great War, upon hearing civil dissension as caused by the controversy over entrance into the war on the allied side, President Wilson sent a friendly note, on June 5, 1917,5 counseling the Chinese to compose their factional disputes and to establish a united, central and responsible government.

3

Thus briefly characterized, the policy of the United States in China is the Open Door Doctrine. When the international struggle for leases and concessions commenced in 1897-9, carving China into exclusive spheres of influence and thus threatening to close the various regions to the trade of the United States, John Hay, then Secretary of State, was confronted with a most complicated problem. He could not join in the general scramble, for that would be contrary to public opinion and to the traditional policy of non-intervention. Nor could he remain inactive and permit the doors of China to be closed, for, China being such a potentially wealthy nation, the United States could not afford to lose her share of commerce. His difficult problem and his attitude thereto were clearly shown in a contemporary letter:

6

. . We are, of course, opposed to the dismemberment of that empire, and we do not think that the public opinion of the United States woud justify this Government in taking part in the great game of spoliation now going on. At the same time we are keenly alive to the importance of safeguarding our great commercial interests in that empire and our representatives there have orders to watch closely everything that may seem calculated to injure us, and prevent it by energetic and timely representations."

Thus compelled to act so that the doors of China might remain open for the trade of American merchants, he sent his first circular note, on September 6, 1899, to London, Berlin and St. Petersburg, and on November 13, to Tokio, on November 17, to Rome, and on November 21, to Paris. Though wording his notes with some differences to suit the various chancellories, he set forth in essence the following proposal: 8

"This Government is animated by a sincere desire that the interests of our citizens might not be prejudiced

through exclusive treatment by any of the controlling powers within their so-called 'spheres of interest' in China, and hopes also to retain there an open market. for the commerce of the world, remove dangerous sources of international irritation, and hasten thereby united or concerted action of the powers at Peking in favor of the administrative reforms so urgently needed for strengthening the Imperial Government and maintaining the integrity of China in which the whole western world is alike concerned. It believes that such a result may be greatly assisted by a declaration by the various powers claiming 'spheres of interest' in China of their intentions. as regards treatment of foreign trade therein. The present moment seems a particularly opportune one for informing Her Britannic Majesty's Government of the desire of the United States to see it make a formal declaration and to lend its support to obtaining similar declarations from the various powers claiming 'spheres of influence' in China, to the effect that each in its respective sphere of interest or influence

"First, will in nowise interfere with any treaty port or any vested interest within any so-called 'sphere of interest,' or leased territory it may have in China.

"Second, that the Chinese treaty tariff of the time being shall apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports as are within said 'sphere of interest' (unless they be 'free ports'), no matter to what nationality it may belong, and that duties so leviable shall be collected by the Chinese Government.

"Third, that it will levy no higher harbor dues on vessels of another nationality frequenting any port in such 'sphere' than shall be levied on vessels of its own nationality, and no higher railroad charges over lines, controlled or operated within its sphere on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of other nationalities transported through such 'sphere' than shall be levied on similar merchandise belonging to its own nationals transferred over equal distance."

To this note all the Powers addressed replied in favor, generally with the reservation that the other Powers.

should concur, and with the exception, however, of Russia, who was significantly silent on the uniformity of harbor dues and railroad charges. On March 20, 1900, having received all the replies, John Hay informed the Powers that

"the condition originally attached to its acceptance

that all other powers concerned should likewise accept the proposals of the United States . . . having been complied with, this Government will therefore consider the assent given to it by as final and defini

tive.'

99 10

Interpreting the doctrine as formulated by John Hay, we can safely say that the first principle of the Open Door policy is the equal opportunity of trade. As postulated by John Hay, this equal opportunity of trade is to be obtained by the maintenance of the Chinese treaty tariff for the time being whose collection at the treaty ports is to be left in the hands of the Chinese Government, which means, of course, uniformity of tariff and the equal treatment of foreign merchants of whatever nationality with respect to importations and exportations. Further, it is to be maintained by the uniform levy of harbor dues and railroad charges, which means the equal treatment of all nations in the matter of transportation.

This principle of equal opportunity of trade does not preclude the existence of spheres of influence. In fact, the sphere of influence was quite clearly implied and recognized in the correspondence of John Hay for the establishment of the Open Door Doctrine. Each government addressed was requested to make a declaration in favor of the application of the three provisions as stipulated by John Hay "in its respective spheres of interest or influence." 11 The first of the three provisions was that each government in its respective sphere would in nowise interfere with any treaty port or any vested interest within any so-called "sphere of interest" or leased ter

ritory it might have in China, thus definitely recognizing spheres of interest. The British reply 12 specifically stated that

"Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to make a declaration in the sense desired by your Government in regard to the leased territory of Weihaiwei and all territories in China which may hereafter be acquired by Great Britain by lease or otherwise, and all spheres of interest now held or that may hereafter be held in China . . .'

13

to which John Hay did not make any exception or objection. In subsequent history, when Great Britain put her mantle of influence over Tibet in 1906 18 and Russia over Outer Mongolia in 1913 and 1915,14 and when France secured the declaration from the Chinese Government for a preference in railroad and mining enterprises in Kwangsi in 1914,15 the United States Government was not reported to have lodged any protest; and in 1915 when Japan made Eastern Inner Mongolia her sphere of influence and South Manchuria virtually her exclusive preserve, the United States Government, while making a general declaration reaffirming the Open Door policy and reserving the right of exception to any agreements between China and Japan contrary to the principles of the Open Door or the treaty rights of the United States, did not make any specific representations of protest against the provisions regarding Eastern Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria.

What John Hay opposed was, not the existence of spheres of influence which had already existed before the enunciation of his doctrine, but rather the closing of the spheres to the trade of the world or the assertion of claims to exclusive rights within the spheres. The three provisions as postulated by John Hay were designed to keep the doors open in the various spheres through the recognition of vested interests and the maintenance of the Chinese treaty tariff and the uniformity of har