[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[44302]
No. 1.
50
[December 18.]
SECTION 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir A. Nicolson.
(No. 320.) Sir,
Foreign Office, December 18, 1909. I HAVE received your Excellency's despatch No. 624 of the 26th ultimo in regard to your interview with M. Kokovtsoff on his return from his visit to the Far East.
I note, however, with regret M. Kokovtsoff's complaint that foreign Powers were, owing to their unjust protests, raising difficulties in the way of the development of Harbin. This statement is hardly, in my opinion, in accordance with facts, and a short recapitulation of the events which have led to the present deadlock in regard to the question of the railway settlements dispute, to which it is assumed M. Kokovtsoff refers, will bear out this view.
On the 10th May last an agreement was come to between the Russian and Chinese Governments whereby Russia recognised Chinese sovereignty over the Russian railway areas in Manchuria. Under article 17 of this agreement it was laid down that detailed municipal regulations should forthwith be drawn up by the Russian and Chinese authorities for enforcement within these areas.
The attitude of certain foreign Powers, viz., Great Britain, United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France, in regard to these regulations has been from the first that if it is intended to make them binding on foreigners they must first receive the assent of the foreign diplomatic and consular authorities.
It is to this attitude that the Russian Government have taken exception. They maintain that under the new agreement with China they have been constituted by the latter Power an official organ of the Chinese Government, and consequently are invested with the right to draw up what regulations they deem fit without reference to the foreign consular authorities.
In support of their claim they adduce instances of territory under Chinese jurisdiction outside settlements where, if foreigners decide to reside, they must submit to the taxes and regulations in force in that territory. This contention is, however, an untenable one; inasmuch, as in the first instance foreign Powers cannot recognise the right of China to delegate to another Power such rights as the Russians claim to possess at Harbin; and in the second it should be remembered that, although a foreigner residing in territory under Chinese jurisdiction is supposed to conform to the regulations in force in that territory, he can only be forced to do so by an action brought against him in his own consular court.
The point of the whole dispute is that foreign Powers cannot admit the right of Russia, on territory which is recognised as being under Chinese sovereignty, to exclusive jurisdiction over her own subjects and foreigners alike, which is the system she wishes to establish in the railway areas.
It is, of course, true that the issue of the new municipal regulations has been delayed by this divergence of view between the Russian Government and foreign Powers, and there can be no doubt that pending the issue and enforcement of the regulations difficulties have been, and will be, encountered by the Russian authorities in the collection of taxes, &c., from Chinese and foreigners residing in the settlements; on the other hand, the Russian Government have the remedy for this state of affairs in their own hands, as it is unlikely that foreign Governments will oppose the imposition of equitable regulations which are required for the government and maintenance in proper order of the settlements in question.
I am, &c.
E. GREY.
Jar
[2548 s-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.