I
12
In reasserting that there was not and could not have been any intention to attack Shameen, we have categorically to state that the firing on June 23 was first opened from And in view of its pre- the Shameen side. This point, of course, is of vital importance. sentation by the British delegation, it now appears necessary for the Conference to con- sider whether the question of responsibility for the Shameen-Shakee shooting should not form the subject of a properly constituted 'international enquiry. We have, however, to point out that it was to avoid the necessity of such an enquiry that the Chinese delegation argued in their statement that the point is of "secondary importance" and "is not a capital issue, since "all the relevant facts of the case support the view that, even if the Shameen firing were done in the first instance in so-called defence (which is categorically denied), it was EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIED,”
[
While we are prepared to agree to the holding of an enquiry to determine the **question of whose act gave rise to the tragedy,' we cannot in the meantime allow to go machallenged the 'written statements by the Danish and Swedish Consuls and American citizens who were present at the same time, and assert definitely of their own knowledge that the first shots were fired from Shaker." These men formed part of the population or of the garrison of Shameen on June 23 and they are no more disinterested witnesses than is Sir James Jamieson. In principle their testimony is just as tainted as that of the men Nor can we who actually shot down Chinese students and others on the Shaker bund. refrain from instantly repelling the attempt to fasten responsibility for the Chinese dead and wounded on the Chinese authorities who, it is alleged, disregarding the folly and danger of their action, allowed inflammable material to be placed ready to the hands of the agitators seeking for an opportunity to cause a conflagration." There is a familiar ring in these words. It is always heard when men's folly and unwisdom plunge them into deeds of blood and a scapegoat must be tracked, But the real reply to this charge is that the Chinese Authorities did not interfere with the demonstration because, as a fact, they were absolutely satisfied that no attack would or could be made on Shameen. responsible witnesses can attest to this faet.
A host of
We note that the British delegation challenge our definition of the anti-British boycott as a patriotic abstention from all commercial relations with the British and assert that it is imposed on an unwilling people by a small hut powerful organisation of per- sons who maintain the boycott by force of arms. A complete reply to this British con- tention would necessarily involve the discussion of questions which, though we are ready
Bi and prepared to discuss them, do not come within the ambit of this Conference, we have to emphasize the grave insult to the Chinese nation that is implied in the British view. To believe that the Chinese people are incapable of mass indignation and mass ac- tion for acts of death and violence of the type enacted on the Shakee Bund is not only to It is doubt- err grievously but to imply that we are a people with the stuff of slaves in us. less true that there have been incidents in our relations with the British, in the past. But great tidal waves of change which may explain the persistence of this British belief. have swept across the world; and men's work and action in this region of Asia are to-day inspired by ideas of freedom and human dignity which will not suffer them tamely to suli- mit to violence and injustice. Unless this is grasped and understood by the British and Translated into their policy and action, the future of our relations with them will be but a repetition of the past with its misunderstandings, its riots, its tumults and its wars. We speak gravely. We are on the eve, if not already in the midst, of events that may cut out in the rocks of destiny a new road for our people. It is not our wish that we should enter on this new road with the British at variance with us. situation in which the decision as to the future is largely theirs.
But we are in a
As regards the blockade by Hongkong, we have to reiterate that whatever, sub- jectively, it was intended to compass, the general prohibition was interpreted as a finan- cial and economic blockade of Canton and the rest of the province and that, objectively, it worked out in this sense, since Hongkong as the whole transhipment port in South China, was the only gateway through which supplies of food could then reach our people. This interpretation of the embargo is not affected by either its modification August 11 of its removal on October 9. By these dates it appears to have been realised that the relief measures instituted by Canton for the importation of food from other cen- tres had deprived the blockade of its effectiveness.
13
Finally, we have to welcome the expression of the British delegation's desire "of 348 seeing a happy, prosperous and independent China with whom they can conduct their trade," the more so because past and recent British action have not been calculated to inspire confidence in the possibility of reconciling what have hitherto been understood to be the aims of British policy in this country with Chinese Nationalist ideals and aspira- But if we are to understand the British delegation's desire as an indication of fu- true British policy in China, there is good reason to believe that its realisation will wit- ness the establishment of relations with the British that shall secure to them the good will and friendliness of Nationalist China.
tions.
No. 7.
STATEMENT
MADE BY THE
BRITISH DELEGATION
AT THE
MEETING OF FRIDAY, THE 23rd July. 1926.
The British delegation do not propose to prepare any written reply to the statement on behalf of the Chinese delegation at the meeting of the 21st July. They refrain from doing so because they feel that it would involve further historical discussion which would at the present stage serve no useful purpose. They prefer to disens verbally any actual proposals for the settlement of the boycott.
No. 8.
FIRST CHINESE COMMUNIQUÉ,
(EXTRACTED FROM THE CANTON GAZETTE OF TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY, 1926.)
The conference for the settlement of Chinese-British disputes in the Liang-Kuang resumed its sittings yesterday morning at the Canton Foreign Office when the British delega tion replied to the statement of the Chinese delegation on the origin of the anti-British boycoti. The next sitting will be on Wednesday.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.