British Policy in the Far East

Author(s): Gerald Samson

Source: Foreign Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Apr., 1940), pp. 477-485
Published by: Council on Foreign Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20029017 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 00:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign
Affairs.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRITISH

POLICY

IN THE

FAR EAST

By Gerald Samson
title of this article suggests that in face of a grave
international problem Britain has an attitude that is both
must
state at the outset
positive and clearly defined. I
that the facts do not warrant any such interpretation. A British
of
exists, so far as it affects the maintenance
policy undoubtedly
certain principles of action; but action itself?as
and when it
can be taken ?
is still today, as it has been for the past twenty
years, conditioned by the trend of world events which often are
control. Preoccupation
with develop
entirely outside British
ments nearest home in Europe is inevitable, and distant events
A statement made at the unofficial
necessarily take second place.
on British Commonwealth
at
in
Relations
Conference
Sydney
the obvious: "No threat to British Far
1938 only expressed
Eastern interests, however grave, can ever deflect British states
must
inevitably be its major concern, namely,
manship from what
British
the security of the
Isles, and of the sea communications
upon which Great Britain depends for her supplies of foodstuffs
and raw materials."1 The objective of succeeding British admin
istrations has been to preserve the status quo as far as possible
while letting the situation steadily deteriorate. Only when driven
into a corner where action of some sort became obligatory did
even then
mere tem
they show any initiative, and
they adopted
porary expedients. They entered treaties, partly in trust, but also
on the
public mind and for their
partly for their calming effect
the inevitable.
value in postponing

THE

In

short,

Britain's

alternating

attitude

of

compromise

and

de

cision is no more graphically

illustrated than by her Far Eastern
After
the
Alliance was regarded as
1902
policy.
Anglo-Japanese
the instrument most likely to furnish stability and peace in the
two
Orient. However,
factors emerged to challenge
disturbing
to the
this assumption:
the Alliance became anathema
people
and Government
of the United States, friendship with whom was
a cardinal
principle underlying British foreign policy; and the
continental
ambitions of Japan, plainly revealed in 1915 when
on China,
she presented her infamous Twenty-One
Demands
lH.

V. Hodson

University

Press,

(Ed.),

"The

British

Commonwealth

and The

Future."

New

1939, p. 39.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

York:

Oxford

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

478

were in direct conflict with British aims. What finally decided

to drop the Alliance was the growing tension between
Britain
and the United
States,
strong
together with Canada's
% Japan
to its renewal. The British delegates to the Conference
opposition
in 1922 therefore abandoned
the twenty-year
of Washington
a
international
that on
in
favor
of
of
series
old pact
agreements
paper at any rate safeguarded Britain's main interests in the Far
Door and equal opportunity
East. China's
integrity, the Open
were
Nine
Power
the
Treaty; while the Pacific
by
guaranteed
status quo was secured under the terms of the Four Power Pact
and the Naval Limitation Treaty. Even so, the British Govern
in themselves provided
ment did not feel that these undertakings
a sufficient
and
for
the
of
protec
supplementary
safety,
margin
it ordered the
tion of its Pacific possessions and communications
of the powerful naval and air base at Singapore
construction
recommended by Lord Jellicoe in 1920.
Treaties necessarily had an adverse effect on
The Washington
ac
relations. Although
Japan had reluctantly
Anglo-Japanese
considered
had
the
that
she
of
she
in
the
Alliance,
quiesced
lapse
been jettisoned by her old ally; while the provision of an inferior
ratio in the naval agreements, plus the shadow of the Singapore
Base, created an abiding bitterness. Nor did the Nine Power
have the desired effect of assuring in China a stable,
Treaty
towards Great Britain. On the
well disposed
peaceful nation
with its demand for
contrary, the rise of Chinese nationalism,
the abolition of the so-called "unequal treaties," led not only to
the continuation of civil strife but to violent anti-British agitation
and other cities. This was the
in Canton,
Shanghai, Hankow
more serious since Japan, under the guidance of Foreign Minister
Shidehara, stood aloof; while Japanese merchants not unnaturally
to
viewed the anti-British boycott as a heaven-sent
opportunity
"muscle

in."

so far as concerned China, was relieved

The situation,
by
Britain's recognition of the Kuomintang
(National) Government
at Hankow
return of the British Concessions
at Nanking,
by her
measures.
Nor
did the
other
and
and Kiukiang,
conciliatory
by
were
with
relations
that
its
consider
British Government
Japan
so strained that time, tact, and goodwill could not improve them.
As it turned out, the hope for better relations with Japan was
because of Britain's new China policy. The
frustrated precisely
demand

of

the Kuomintang

whose

xenophobia

was

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

now

di

BRITISH POLICY IN THE FAR EAST

479

rected against Japan for the retrocession of the Kwantung Leased

and the increased irritation caused by the stiffening
Territory,
were in
of the Chinese attitude inManchuria,
the
Japanese eyes
direct result of the British Government's
down"
'bowed
having
to the Chinese
in the case of Hankow. Nevertheless,
following
was careful not to be drawn
Britain
Japan's previous example,
into the quarrel, and she kept out of it until the
Japanese Army
in September
into Manchuria
marched
1931, and China appealed
to the League of Nations.
This Japanese coup constituted a direct challenge to the
efficacy
of the League Covenant,
the Nine Power
Treaty and the Kellogg
it auto
Pact, to all of which Japan was a signatory. Moreover,
on trial the whole
system of collective security
matically
placed
to build up ever
which the League states had been endeavoring
since the close of the Great War. There was a sharp division of
as to what should be Britain's
opinion in the United Kingdom
an influen
policy in the crisis. The "Imperialists,"
composed of
tial section of the Conservative
which
had
Party
just been re
turned to power, showed an instinctive sympathy with
Japan.
Business
interests engaged in the China trade, and naval and
circles, in general supported them. The Liberal-Labor
military
in the country sided with China, and looked to the
element
see
to
League
justice done.
The self-governing Dominions
might have been expected, at
least in the case of New Zealand and Australia with their tradi
tional dread of "the Yellow Peril," to throw their influence into
the scale of upholding collective security. But at that time
they
were far more concerned with the economic
depression; and the
in the Japanese
invasion was to
only interest they exhibited
evince relief that China was the victim rather than themselves,
and to express the na?ve belief that
Japan would emerge from her
venture

either

satiated

or

exhausted.

Canada

and

South

Africa,

of Japan's action at
however, joined in the general denunciation
the special session of the League
in
March
1932.
Assembly
In the end the voice that
in British
was again
policy
prevailed
the voice of expediency coupled with
characteristically
optimistic
idealism. "Not one of us would be
a
to
willing
contemplate
future world from which the active influence of the
was
League
eliminated," Sir John Simon, Foreign Secretary, told the Assem
on March
that the
7, 1932. Four days later he proposed
bly
"
the
of
the
of
fruits
Assembly adopt
"non-recognition
aggression

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

480

in the "Stimson Note" ?

resolution contained
the only really
act
constructive
that
the
crisis. In the
performed by
body during
22 Sir John stated that British
on March
House of Commons
was based on
policy
carrying out the purposes of the League and
on
with
other Powers. But, he added, in supporting
cooperation
the League one should "keep the coercive and the mediatory
to the
functions of the League distinct." Referring
Sino-Jap??ese
conflict, he continued: "This has been proved to be a case in
which the effective action of the League is best applied by media
tory and conciliatory action." His concluding remarks contained
I am very happy to think that
the amazing confession: "...
British policy today, whatever may be its shortcomings
and its
at any rate is a
us on terms
which
has
imperfections,
kept
policy
of perfectly friendly relations both with China and Japan."
re
On December
7, after listening to Sir John's observations
the
Mr.
Yosuke
the
Matsuoka,
Lytton Report,
garding
Japanese
remarked
Sir
Simon
that
said in
had
John
delegate, reportedly
?
a
half an hour, in few well-chosen
Mr. Mat
phrases, what he
?
suoka
had been trying to say in his bad English for the last
on
ten days.2
27, 1933, three days after the
Finally
February
a
had adopted
report based on the findings of
League Assembly
and the Japanese delegation had walked
the Lytton Commission,
out of the Assembly,
the Foreign Secretary
informed the House
no
"in
will
of Commons
circumstances
that
this Government
?
a declara
authorize this country to be a party to the struggle"
to inquire whether
tion which caused the Labor opposition
that
did not mean "the abrogation of Article XVI of the Covenant."
A month
later Japan gave notice of her withdrawal
from the
League.

It was now seen clearly that for collective

League

Covenant

as a coercive

instrument

security purposes
was

dead.

But

the
none

of the League members would give it decent burial. From the

day that China had lodged her appeal, the influence of Great
Britain had been paramount at the Council table, and she must
bear the principal blame for the fact that subterfuges and delays
of all descriptions were permitted until Japan was able to present
?
"Manchukuo."
the League with a.fait accompli
American
overtures
for cooperative
action to vindicate
international
the
were
reserve.
with
treated
collective
apparent
security system
The Stimson Note of January 7, 1932, which exerted the first
2Manchester

Guardian,

December

8, 1932.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRITISH POLICY IN THE FAR EAST

481

on
met with a rebuff from the British
Japan,
positive pressure
a
in a Times editorial
rebuff that was underlined
Foreign Office,
that might well have been written by the Japanese spokesman at
Geneva.8 Sir John Pratt, who was closely associated with Sir
John Simon at the Foreign Office at the time, has since explained
as a
away the communiqu? in question
"slip"; but the impression
"
a real obstacle in
it created was, as he observes,
Anglo-American
relations."4

the other hand, a careful investigation conducted inWash

as well as London has convinced the writer that the United
ington
States was not at any point willing to pledge her support to a
or other
measures which the
League
punitive
policy of sanctions
case
measures
to
in
That
such
would
this
have
might agree
adopt.
been ineffective without American
be
should
self
cooperation
evident. Since, therefore, it was the view of the British Govern
?
a
ment that coercive action against Japan entailed risk of war
and that only the association
prize example of Japanese bluff?
of the United States could make the British strategic position
the refusal to bring Japan to book
tenable in such an eventuality,
on
one
not
lie entirely
It may be
side of the Atlantic.
does
cannot
that
it
be
if
the
confirmed,
League had
suggested, though
lived up to its commitments American public opinion would have
insisted on parallel action. I for my part believe it.
Where British policy seems deserving of censure is in failing to
ever since the United
States stepped out of the
recognize that
in 1920 the Covenant was impotent to prevent aggression
picture
a
the
by major signatory Power, and in consistently
encouraging
to have confidence
in a
smaller and less powerful signatories
worthless
guarantee. But Britain had hoped against hope for
our time" and
in
"peace
preferred the sound of brave words to
a state of official international
anarchy. The very ring of the
a
text was as the
of
Covenant's
Magna Charta, immunizing
ring
one
a
as
of
would-be
and
Merlin's
aggressor
by
offering
spells,
talismanic protection of liberty. Now plainly the spell was broken
and the talisman had failed, and British policy had to adjust
itself accordingly. This meant that though the League Covenant
and within circumscribed
limits
remained, and was cautiously
was
even
her
Britain's
own,
applied,
policy
though wrapped up
On

1The Times
editorial of January u,
of the Foreign Office to defend
business
more
is something
than an ideal."
4
Letter
from Sir John Pratt, K.B.E.,

1932, concluded:
the 'administrative
C.M.G.,

published

"Nor

does

integrity'

it seem to be the immediate

of China until that integrity

in The Times

of November

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30,1938.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

482

in League trappings. It was still, however, a

policy of appease
ment and
more
realistic.
temporizing,
though infinitely
a
As
consequence, when Japan commenced
large-scale hostili
ties in China in 1937, and China a second time appealed to the
was
League, Britain, though again favoring friendly mediation,
more
ever
to
ot
than
form
coercive
action.
any
firmly
opposed
On this occasion Britain laid the greatest possible stress on the
need for Anglo-American
and the League definitely
cooperation,
at the
took second place. "In our view," said Mr. Chamberlain
on
Guildhall
November
9, "an essential factor for success in any
is the cooperation of the
endeavor to bring about a settlement
United ^States." To obtain this Mr. Eden had already told Parlia
to
ment
that he was ready to travel "not only from Geneva
to Alaska." The Government,
he
Brussels, but from Melbourne
was
as
as
to
in
far
United
full
the
States,
said,
"go
prepared
accord witn them, not rushing in front but not being left behind."8
This eagerness to work with the United States was only partly
in the Far
explained by the increased gravity of the situation
East and the belated recognition that this could be handled suc
or
action of the English-speaking
cessfully only by joint
parallel
to the
nations. It was no doubt due in equal measure
expanding
Axis
and its implied
influence of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo
threat to the liberties of Britain and the other "peace-loving
in his dynamic de
nations"
referred to by President Roosevelt
nunciation
of "the present reign of terror and international
in his Chicago speech of October
lawlessness"
5. His words at
first kindled high hopes that concerted action by the democratic
Powers might follow. But when it was seen that American public
was much
to such a
opposed
opinion, still strongly isolationist,
inter
course, it was speedily realized that active international
vention was out of the question. The Brussels Conference opened
with this knowledge
and in the circumstances was a complete
waste

of

time.

to take an
further failure led the British Government
next
raised
the ques
the
the
stand
time
unequivocal
Opposition
tion of upholding the rule of law in the Far East. In the House of
on December
21 Mr. Eden said: "If hon. Members
Commons
...
are
I would remind them
sanctions
advocating
opposite
?
are
two
the ineffective,
that there
possible forms of sanctions
which are not worth putting on, and the effective, which means
This

5
Parliamentary

'Debates', House

of Commons,

cccxxviii,

583,

596, November

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1, 1937.

BRITISH POLICY IN THE FAR EAST

483

the risk, if not the certainty, of war. I say deliberately

that no
Far
in
action
of
that
the
could
kind
East
any
body
contemplate
that they have overwhelming
unless they are convinced
force
to back their
opposite really
policy. Do right hon. Gentlemen
two great
think that the League of Nations
today, with only
naval

Powers

in

it, ourselves

and

France,

have

got

that

over

to everyone that that

whelming force? It must be perfectly clear
force does not exist."
overwhelming
There was a risk of another kind which the British Government
was forced to accept ?
with its appeasement
the loss
policy
to
of prestige, and with it the power
mitigate Japanese aggressive
action. Anglo-Japanese
relations were subject to increasing strain
since the British assistance given to China in order to aid her
to
reconstruction
conflicted directly with Japan's determination
dominate

that

country.

Britain has been continually presented as Japan's real enemy,

not China. The
to the flow of
Japanese have pointed
foreign
war
munitions
and other
supplies through the free port of Hong
Canton
in October
1938) as convincing
Kong (up to the fall of
?
even
of
this
the
allegation
proof
though
Japanese Government
a very small
was well aware that
percentage of such material
only
was of British
source
of friction arose from the
Another
origin.
fact that the Japanese Army frequently found its progress hin
dered by foreign rights and interests, mainly British, and had
hence become convinced
that it could not
possibly establish its
in East Asia" unless and until these had been
"New Order
therefore
insisted that Japan's policy
liquidated. The Army
be directed towards undermining
British
influence. In Nippon
itself a vindictive
anti-British
drive was carried on, while
in
China there was a succession of incidents and even direct attacks
on British vested interests.
Among these may be listed the mur
derous assault on the British Ambassador,
Sir Hughe Knatch
mer
the blatant bombings of British
bull-Hugessen;
warships,
and other property;
the closure of the
chantmen, missions
and Pearl Rivers to British shipping; interference with
Yangtze
the commercial life and municipal
in "occupied"
administrations
Settlement
and
territory, including the Shanghai International
at
the foreign Concession
and
the
of
the
blockade
Kulangsu;
at Tientsin,
British Concession
where British nationals were
stripped by Japanese soldiers before crowds of Chinese.
To these "intolerable
insults," to quote the British Prime

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

484

a once
Minister,
proud Britain made but verbal protest. With
Hitler on the rampage in Europe and a belated rearmament pro
?
and strength
gram on her hands
including the modernization
?
was
Far
Britain
of
her
defenses
Eastern
very much
ening
"on the spot." A courageous and positive policy might still have
was
told on the impressionable Japanese; but the Government
to a
and day-to-day
decision.
committed
policy of appeasement
Mr. Chamberlain,
in
stated
November
that
the Gov
1938
having
ernment attitude was based on a desire for
relations
friendly
with both sides, gave in to the Japanese on relatively minor issues
rather

than

risk

a showdown

as

instanced

by

the

surrender

of

the four Chinese suspects at Tientsin.

that this attitude
We may not assume, however,
implied any
to
in
Britain's
determination
her
direct
treaty
wavering
uphold
In this respect she has always regarded herself as
obligations.
honor-bound

to

an

almost

quixotic

extent.

She

therefore

came

official explanation of
down heavily on Premier Prince Konoye's
new
in
Far
affairs
in the note which the
Eastern
Japan's
policy
handed to the Japanese Foreign Minister
British Ambassador
on
"For their part, His
14, 1939, stating expressly:
January
Government
desire to make it clear that they are not
Majesty's
or to
nature indicated,
to
recognize changes of the
prepared
accept
which are brought about by force. They intend to adhere to the
cannot agree to the
principles of the Nine Power Treaty, 6 and
Britain was naturally re
unilateral modification
of its terms."
lieved at the Japanese reaction, and this probably prompted Mr.
to say in a much publicized
interview with the
Chamberlain
are
not a people who
of the Asahi: "We
London representative
cherish grudges a long time. If Japan shows a readiness to respect
reasonable rights and interests in the Far East
Great Britain's
the British people will always respond."7
talks of a general nature have been
Since then, Anglo-Japanese
taking place quietly in London and Tokyo. One of the matters
has been the vexed question of the Chinese
under discussion
silver deposits, valued at some fifty million Chinese dollars, in the
at Tientsin. The latest British
British and French Concessions
to
to suggest that a sixth of this sum be devoted
plan is said
of an international
Chinese flood relief under the supervision
committee and that the remainder should be placed in a neutral
6
in The Times,
Quoted
January
7
3, 1939.
Ibid., November

16, 1939.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRITISH POLICY IN THE FAR EAST

485

to
bank pending the conclusion of hostilities. Japan is understood
to
assent
of
the scheme, and the
have agreed
the French and
which are automatically
United States Governments,
informed of
to
of
is
also
have been
such
believed
every phase
negotiations,
is against the plan, and the recent
obtained. China, however,
to Chungking was
con
visit of the British Ambassador
probably
nected in some way with this issue.
Meanwhile
the extent of the rapprochement between Russia and
is
Britain with anxiety. So far as is
being watched
Japan
by
an
known this consists only of
agreement to end the fighting on
the Outer Mongolia-Manchukuo
frontier and to continue the old
for
another
year. But the Japanese have also
fishery compact
and should these deal with wider
opened? trade talks inMoscow,
?
British interests in the Far East would
and they may
issues
for Russia
almost certainly be affected. An additional motive
to woo
at this time is the
seeking
Tokyo
relatively long-drawn-out
Russian campaign in Finland. The pro-Japanese group in Britain
sees in this situation an urgent reason
why Britain should seek
to come to terms with
the
do. Still another
Russians
before
Tokyo
is their desire to obtain
thought which inspires the "imperialists"
a recent lecture
as a
potential ally against Russia. During
Japan
tour in England, however, the writer found a large
body of public
to
any agreement with Japan until
opinion solidly against coming
she had ceased her aggression in China.
To conclude, then, Britain's policy in the Far East today is
on the
still based
principles embodied in the Nine
fundamentally
Power

Treaty.

Britain

is as anxious

as ever

to see an

independent

and strong China; but she is equally anxious not to break off
amicable relations with Japan. The extent to which she gives
to the Chinese Government
further direct assistance
will there
on
can
how this
be done without provoking active
fore depend
resentment.
Britain
continues to stand firmly by her
Japanese
basic treaty rights in China, but is willing to negotiate on minor
adjustments

where

discretion

recommends

such

a course.

most

And

important, Britain will seek in every way posssible

perhaps
to
cooperate with France and the United States. The impotence
ofWestern diplomacy without American support has been proved
up to the hilt. It is not too much to say that the very fate of the
Western Pacific is bound up in the decisions which the American
Government

takes

in the weeks

ahead.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:00:26 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions