TOPICS OF THE DAY.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD AND CHINA.
IATE welcome the appearance of Lord Charles Beresford's V V book on China ("The Break-up of China"; Harper and Brothers, 12s.) because it raises a fair and square issue, and brings out clearly the two opposing policies in China,— the policy of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire, and the policy we have advocated instead, the policy of refusing (with all its consequences) to attempt to bolster up an Empire which is certainly decayed and decaying, and which possibly is rotten beyond the power of reform from inside. Lord Charles Beresford's policy, granted his premises, is perfectly logical and con- sistent, but must, we hold, land us, in the end, in occupying towards the Chinese Empire a position analogous to that which we occupy towards Egypt. That this, or a great disaster, can be the only result of Lord Charles Beresford's policy may be demonstrated more clearly than is usual in the case of political questions. Lord Charles Beresford starts with the apparently harmless policy of maintaining the "open door." Yet starting from this he is obliged, by the force of reason candidly applied to the facts, to arrive at the tremendous consequences which we have just described. It is useless, he very sensibly argues, to keep the door open unless there is a room beyond, and something worth having, and not mere wrack and ruin, in the room. But the Chinese Empire is the room. Therefore the independence and. integrity of the Chinese Empire must be pre- served. Thus the "open door" necessarily involves the preservation of the Chinese Empire in health and wealth. But Lord Charles Beresford has seen with his own eyes that if the Chinese Empire is to be kept in health and wealth it must be organised, and in fact "run," by competent Europeans. This means that the Chinese military forces must be officered and organised by Europeans, and that a vast number of internal reforms of the most far-reachina. kind—Lord Charles names. eleven— from an Imperial coinage to a land revenue settlement and the abolition of the present system of likia, must be carried out under European guidance. In fact, the formula mist be,—As in Egypt, so in China. Of course it is easy to say that these reforms ought to be carried out by all the European nations in common, and without jealousy ; but we all know that in practice this is utterly. impossible. No decaying Asiatic Power will ever be reorganised by means of Internationalism. The reason is not merely the jealousy of the nations. It is also to be found in the fact that no reforms are effective in a country like China unless they are backed by external force. An Asiatic Power is often quite willing at the beginning to .make use of white men, because they are regarded as a kind of magicians, who can brinn.'' wealth and power. The notion of putting a white man as Finance Minister, or War Minister, or. Head of the Admiralty,is acceptable because it is believed that somehow or other these mad white men will produce revenue and trained regiments and good ships. When, however, the white man begins to ask for disagreeable efforts, cuts off salaries, dismisses officials,. and stops peculation, Asia at once rebels, and the white men are got rid of. Asiatic Powers want efficiency and wealth, but they want it without sacrifice. When, their, the white reformers have nothing but Internationalism (i.e., an organised diplomatic faction fight) behind them, they go, and the Asiatic Power returns to its ruins and its dreams. That is what has always happened in Turkey when efforts have been made at a reorganisation of the Empire on European principles. If, however, as in Egypt or Tunis, there is a single efficient European Power behind who can, and does, say : You shall not turnout the white officers and officials, because we will support them and insist on their reforms being carried through,' the reforms continue and the country begins to prosper. This means, then, that if the Chinese Empire is to have its military forces made efficient, its revenues reformed, and its internal administra- tion improved, there must be a single strong; Power behind the white reformers who, when necessary, will give them the required moral and physical support. But if any Power is to do this it must obviously be England ; for, in the first place, no other would be likely to undertake the burden; and next, even if any other Power were to do it. China, it is admitted, would soon lose its integrity and independence. Lord Charles Beresford instinctively realises this, and in effect, his proposal is that English officers and officials_ should. reorganise China, and secure her integrity .and. in- dependence. Now, as we understand him, Lord Charles Beresford stops his logical efforts here. He sees that the "open door" involves the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire, he sees that the maintenance of that integrity and independence involves -the reorganisation of China, and he sees that the reorganisation involves the employment of English officers in the Army and English official guidance and control in the civil and revenue administrations. But here he stops. He does not take. matters a step farther, and apparently does not see that English influence and control must either fail or else end in the complete control of China after the precedent of Egypt. But though Lord Charles Beresford stops short in his logical career, we do not believe that the present Govern- ment or the English people will be content to do so. We believe that they will o that Lord Charles Beresford's policy means in the end, whether for good or ill, the domination and control of China by England. What, then, we have to consider is this. Is it wise to adopt a policy which will ultimately turn China into another Egypt on a gigantic scale ? Should we adopt that policy ? Though we are Imperialists and expansionists, we must most emphatically declare that we should be mad to enter upon such a policy. The United Kingdom has a broad back, but not a back broad enough to bear such a burden as this. We do not wish our greatness to fail 'from craven fears of being great,' but we do want to see moderation, and sobriety, and self-restraint preserved in the pursuit of empire, as well as in every other respect. Because we do not want John Bull to bite off more than he can chew' we have no desire that he should stop biting altogether. Let him eat steadily and. slowly, and so secure a good digestion. But it may be said Even if we refuse to undertake the reorganisation of China, there is no reason why we should not say " Hands off" to other Powers,—why, that is, we should not still maintain the "open door" and the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire.' One answer to this is the answer which Lord Lord Charles Beresford in effect gives in his book. Unless China is reorganised the "open door "is not worth having and the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire an impossibility. The door will only open into a ruined room ii %ma is not reorganised. Besides, we have the example of Turkey before us. What good have we done ourselves by the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire ? We tried to bolster up Turkey without reorganising her, and what was the result ? We added L100,000,000 to our National Debt, but the Ottoman Empire dwindled, and is still dwindling, and we now realise that "we put our money on the wrong horse," and that it is not worth our while to make any more sacrifices for Turkey. No lesson, in fact, is clearer than this. It is not worth while to try to maintain the integrity of a decaying Empire unless you are prepared to provide the antiseptics necessary to stop decay.
But if Lord Charles Beresford's pol icy. of "Thorough" is put aside, and if we also reject a policy analogous to that pursued as to Turkey in the past, there remains only the policy of leaving China to her fate (whatever that may prove), and reserving for ourselves special powers to deal with one portion of the Empire should it ever become derelict. This is, in truth, the policy which our Government have adopted, and, in our opinion, ihost wisely. They have refused to interfere in China more than is absolutely necessary, and they have ear-marked the Yangtse 'Valley as a special field for British railway enterprise, and as destined to come to us in the event of a break-up of China. It is possible, though not, we admit, likely; that China, after an internal explosion, may reform herself as did Japan. - In that case we are safe. If, however, China does break up, .then at any rate we have provided for our commercial interests _withont committing ourselves to so terrible a burden as *domination - of all China in the face of European jealousies and hairecls. The residuary right to the Yangtse Valley may, no doubt, prove a tremendous burden, but it is nothing compared with the control of the whole of China. For us to assume, a virtual protectorate of China would be to raise the hatred and jeilonsy of the rest of the world, as well as to,put a terrible strain upon our reserve of capable adrciinistrators.
Previous page
