214
RUSSIA IN MANCHURIA.
(Daily Press, 16th September.)
on
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
are shown by the continuation of the Trans- Siberian line through Manchuria, he maintains (which nobody will dispute) that Russia must go on guarding the railway, even if she evacuates the rest of the pro- vince, and (a totally different matter) that Russia must not permit any commercial competition in Manchuria. Russia, says the writer, will have the fruits of annexa. tion without any of the responsibilities. This is a very natural view for a French- man, an admirer of France's ally, to take. It cannot, however, commend itself to the nations with any commercial interes's in Manchuria. Three nations, Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, in varying proportions, have important stakes in Manchurian trade. Two of these nations have guaranteed to each other the province's integrity, in common with that of the rest of China. Is it not therefore more than time that an understanding is come to in the matter before things go too far? If the situation continues to develop in the manner it has recently been developing, then we can see no security whatever for the peace of the Far East-and this peace means also the peace of the world in general.
It is refreshing to see a vigorous protest against Russia's conduct in Manchuria made at last in a responsible journal which is not published in the Far East. It is a long time now since the British Press in China and Japan raised its voice against the absolute want of faith shown by the Tsar's Government with regard to the north-easternmost province of the Chinese empire. We need not recapitulate all the insincere assurances made by Muscovite representatives in the East and at the courts of the Powers as to Russia's intention one day in the near future to evacuate Man- churia, safeguarding only the railway line. No one requires to be reminded how Russia has acted up to her traditional policy. Agreements have been signed and promises made, with the customary sequel of non- fulfilment. Eut of late the conduct of the invading officials in Manchuria has been intolerable. Not only have travellers been prevented as far as possible from getting about Manchuria at all and all non-Russian trade checked to the extent of the aggressors' power, but now we are told that the Russian Minister ut Peking has advised the commander of the troops to expel the British employees of the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs who were sent to resume charge of the Manchurian Postal Service. Well may the New York Times talk of "effrontery" and "cynicism the part of Russia. The words are not strong enough. The Russians are behav- ing in Manchuria as their Government would not dare to act in Russia herself. It can be imagined what an outcry would arise were that Government to expel the employees of a company in Russian territory on account of their nationality. A serious international affair would in- mediately appear.
But this reported outrage occurs in territory still Chinese, by Russia's own admission in black and white. If this conduct is to be borne, the question may well be asked, what of Great Britain's remaining prestige in North China. It is not known outside Ministerial circles what our Government is doing with regard to the continued occupation of Manchuria and the arbitrary acts of the Russian com- manders. Questions asked in Parliament have failed to elicit any information of value. Yet it can hardly be believed that nothing at all is being done. In the first place, such a supposition would mean that the new Anglo-Japanese Treaty, which is looked upon as such a notable stroke of policy, breaks down at its first trial. Great Britain and Japan jointly guaranteed the integrity of China and Corea. Manchuria is not excepted from this convention, as it was, according to the German statement, in the once lauded Anglo-Germau Agreement. If then Russia can so far neglect. the new Dual Alliance in the East as to settle down for an indefinite time in Manchuria, the Alliance is proved impotent within the briefest date of its conclusion, and the boast of Lord SALISBURY's last few months of office is shown to be foolish and idle.
Certain nations no doubt look forward with equanimity to the permanent occupa tion of Manchuria by China's northern neighbour. Germany has shown that she does not care what becomes of a province where her trade is practically non-existent. France naturally welcomes the idea. A writer in the Revue des Deuz Mondes last month has an article on what he calls Russian Manchuria." Taking the remark. able view that Russia's pacific intentions
14
WEIHAIWEI'S FUTURE.
(Daily Press, 15th September.) The statement made by General DORWARD, late Acting Commissioner, in his just issued report on Weihaiwei.in 1901, confirms the recent ministerial remarks in the House of Commons on the subject. General DORWARD says that it is not the present intention of the Government to refortify the station, but to retain it as a flying naval base and depôt, and as a drill-ground and sanatorium for the China Squadron, The only new question to be asked is, what is the meaning of the words " present intention of the Government"? Does it imply that the Government is ready to contemplate the possibility of changing its mind? It can signify little else, and in this cuse the inconsistency of the responsible Ministers' action with regard to Weibaiwei is even more apparent than before. We have just got accustomed to the idea of the “ third rate watering place," which was also to be used as a summer resort and sanatorium for the Fleet in Chinese waters. Now a suggestion is held out by the late Acting Commissioner's report that Weihaiwei may eventually be refortified. It really looks as if the history of Hongkong might possibly be repeated, and that if Weihaiwei is ever to become a valuable British possession it will be in spite of the opinions of the Government's advisers and owing to the enterprise of individuals not connected with the Government. Hongkong, as all students of the Colony's early history are aware, was very nearly abandoned as useless. It would be difficult to conceive what Britain's position in Chinese waters would 'now be, had this been done, unless indeed the Chusan Islands had been taken in Hongkong's stead. So it is possible that one day residents in Weihaiwei will look back with amusement to the story of the new Colony's early days, and, where we now see ample evidence of vacillation on the part of the Government, wil be able to talk of short-sightedness. But in view of Britain's self-denying policy in Shantung, whereby Germany without exerting any pressure was able to secure the spoils of the province, we do not see much ground for anticipating for the northern port the same astounding history as Hongkong has had. The environment is totally different, and, unless as a special correspondent wrote to
|
|
|
[September 22, 1902.
us from Weihaiwei last June, the boom in commercial ports in China extends even to ill-favoured Weihaiwei, there does not seem any particular reason why British merchants should Lasten to embark their capital in new ventures there. Port Edward, as it has this year been rechristened, has, we know, become a serious rival to Chefoo as a summer residence for civilians, and above all for ladies and children seeking refuge from the hot months at Shanghai. It has too been pronounced an admirable "flying naval base and depôt and a drill-ground and sanatorium for the China squadron," to use the late Acting Commissioner's words. We shall look forward with eagerness to see what Mr. STEWART LOCKHART, the first actual Commissioner, will have to say of Weihaiwei when be comes to write the next annual report on the plaće.
富景
E
C
*
SINGAPORE AND SIAM.
The
(Daily Press, 19th September.) It seems to us a matter for regret that the Singapore papers have taken up toward the Siamese Government the attitude of which we have recently given some examples. We do not propose to defend the conduct of the Siamese in that part of the Malay Penin- sula which is under their rule, for that is a matter about which we know less than Singapore. But to criticise Siamese mis- government, if it exists, is a different matter from urging, as the Press of the Southern port practically does, the annexa- tion of Siamese Malaya to Great Britain. Sir FRANK SWETTENHAM recently went on a short visit to Kelantan and the neigh- bouring parts of the Peninsula. Straits Times, commenting on this, said :- By this time it seems to be generally understood that the voyage to Kelantan "and Tringganu which H.E. the Governor has undertaken, bas a inore important The "object thau casually meets the eye,
Governor took with him, we learn, a bundle of British flags. As to the number, design, or even object of these flags we have no definite information, but 'conjecture is rife, and among the other rumours current it is alleged that they are to float over Kelantan, and perhaps Tringganu, before long, and thus place "those two States under British protection.' Such a paragraph can only be regarded as The Straits mischievous in the extreme. Times goes on to mention that, on the 20th ult., the steamer Flevo took direct to Kelantan about 100 Sikhs, who were specially imported from Pennng, Bombay etc., by the agent of the Sultan of Kelantan The natural implication in Singapore. of this is that the Sultan of Kelantan was about to throw off the Siamese yoke and put himself under British protec tion, and that the Governor of the Straits Settlements proceeded to Kelantan aid him in this design. Now could any sensible man seriously anticipate this most unwarrantable line of policy on the part of Sir FRANK SWETTENHAM, Governor of a British Colony anl responsible to the As a British Government for his acts? matter of fact Sir FRANK returned to Singapore on the 10th instant, leaving Kelautan still under Siamese rule. became of the flags, the Straits Tmes does Our contemporary con. not mention. cludes a short article on the Governor's return with the words "his tour has no immediate political significance." We do not understand why it was thought fit to try to read such significance into the tour at all, except in support of the annexationist policy, which is most unwisely and short- sightedly being advocated by a strong
to
What