---
39215
2 DEC 09,
[November 20.]
SECTION 1.
188
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
[B]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[42485]
No. 1.
(No. 302.) Sir,
Sir C. MacDonald to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received November 20.)
Tokyo, October 18, 1909. AT the time when Mr. Crane, American Minister designate to China, was recalled to Washington on the eve of his departure from his post, rumours had already for some days been current here that an American protest was contemplated to the arrangements affecting railways and mines in the China-Japan Agreement of the 4th September, and it was supposed that the central authorities desired to confer with him further on this subject. It was conjectured that the idea of such a belated protest directed against an agreement which had been before the world for nearly a month indicated not so much any serious objection to its terms as a desire to prepare the way, by a tactical move, for American participation in Manchurian enterprises, which was foreshadowed by Mr. Straight's secret conference with the Chinese Viceroy at Mukden. The Government, indeed, in a communiqué to the papers, while stating it was inconceivable that the American Government should allege, as reported, that the absence of the American Ambassador from Tokyo could prevent the lodging of such a protest, denied that one had been or could be made, Japan's open door policy (or rather her policy of equal opportunity) in Manchuria having been recognised by all the Powers. When, therefore, Mr. Crane's recall ended in his resiguation, with the revelations which accompanied it, Japan was taken by surprise, for the Japanese Government, as Count Komura informed me, had had no hand whatever in his removal, and the suggestion emanating from San Francisco that Japan purposed dictating the selection of America's representative at Peking and objected to Mr. Crane for having contributed to the Russian war fund was repudiated with ridicule by the Tokyo press.
The papers here have adopted a cautious and not unfriendly tone throughout, but it is clear that the country is perturbed by the change in American policy to one of suddenly awakened activity in China since Mr. Taft's accession to power, and is offended by the report that the State Department regarded the publication of Mr. Crane's views as particularly unfortunate at present, as it was intended that he should sound other diplomats at Peking with a view to ensuring the support of at loast a majority of the Great Powers who accepted the " open door" policy before representations were made to Japan. The suggestion that the United States' were seeking to form a combination of Powers against Japan has been compared to the notorious triple intervention which ousted her from Port Arthur fourteen years ago; and the secrecy of America's action is keenly felt, as the two Powers are bound by an agreement not yet a year old to communicate directly with each other in the event of the principle of equal opportunity in China being threatened.
In this there is something of exaggeration. The United States are entitled to examine the China-Japan Agreement and to take time to do it; but after the recent incident it is natural that Japan should regard America's activity in China with increased watchfulness and her Far Eastern diplomacy with some suspicion, the very abruptness of Mr. Crane's dismissal, intended perhaps to placate Japanese sus- ceptibilities, contributing rather to prove the reality of American designs to set on foot an anti-Japanese couspiracy in Peking. The charge of violating the principle of equal opportunity in Manchuria is not taken very seriously here. Count Komura informs me that article 4 of the China-Japan Agreement regarding joint mining undertakings was intended not to form the basis of a clear partnership between the two countries to the exclusion of other Powers in similar industries, but as a proof, by the association of China in her projects, that Japan aimed at no monopoly of activity in Manchuria. There is, his Excellency avers, no such exclusive intention. By article 4 of the Portsmouth Treaty Japan engaged not to obstruct measures common to all countries for the development of Manchuria, but she is at the same time determined not to be
[2495 u-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.