13
12
consequence of the discontinuance of the conventions, the full rate of customs duties should be henceforth collected on the frontier. The putting into effect of these orders has, however, been postponed.
On the 6th April, 1926, the Chinese Government proposed to the Belgian Government a radical revision of the treaty of the 2nd November, 1865, on the ground of article 46, whereby, if the Belgian Government desired modifications in any of the clauses of the treaty, they could open negotiations at the end of a ten-year period, after giving six months' notice to the Chinese Government of their intention. The Belgian Government contested the right of the Chinese Government to propose any modifications of the treaty under this article, but they accepted the possibility of finding a modus vivendi which, while recognising the interests of Belgium, would not adversely affect the legitimate rights of China (note of the 21st August, 1926). The Belgian Chargé d'Affaires in London enquired privately as to the views of His Majesty's Government, and was informed that, according to our legal expert, the question of denouncing" could not arise out of article 46 or any other article in the treaty, and that it was undesirable for the Belgians to admit that, failing an agreement for revision, the treaty would terminate; even the proposal for a modus vivendi seemed rather dangerous. The point is of importance to us, because under article 27 of the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of Tien-tsin (the 26th June, commercial 1858) either party can demand a revision of the tariff and of the articles of the treaty at the end of every period of ten years, and, if this means that, failing agreement as to such revision, the provisions in question will come to an end, the Chinese Government would be, as against us, in a much better position than they are as against Belgium, to get rid of all the provisions which may be regarded as coming under the phrase "the commercial articles of this treaty.'
-
The proposal for a modus vivendi broke down, since the Belgians had suggested that it should continue for periods of six months at a time, such periods being indefinitely renewable, while China demanded that if the negotiations did not result in a settlement at the end of the first six months they should be free to give three The Belgian Government months' notice of the termination of the modus vivendi. then invited the Chinese Government to lay the question in dispute before The Hague Tribunal. This proposal China has also rejected on the ground that the issue is not the technical interpretation of article 46, but the application of the principle of equality of treatment, which cannot be made the subject of judicial enquiry. On the 6th November Dr. Koo, the Chinese Foreign Minister (who is also Premier), At the announced that the 1865 treaty must be considered to have come to an end. same time, he issued a mandate instructing the Government departments and the full protection of the Belgian provincial authorities to draw up regulations for Legation, consulates, nationals, products and ships, in accordance with international law and custom.** The Belgian Government have now stated that they will them- selves in any case submit the matter to The Hague.
The Chino-Japanese Commercial Treaty of the 21st July, 1896, came to the endl of one of its ten-year periods on the 20th October. Article 26 of this treaty provides that either of the contracting parties may demand a revision of the tariffs and of the commercial articles at the end of such decennial periods. The Chinese note expressed the wish to enter into negotiations for a radical revision on an equal footing of the whole commercial treaty, and concluded by stating that, if revision were not effected within the six months referred to in article 26, the Chinese Government reserved all their rights in the matter. The Japanese Government replied on the 10th November, expressing their readiness to enter into negotiations for treaty revision, but refusing to accept the Chinese reservation regarding the situation which would arise if the new treaty were not concluded within six months. The actual intentions of the Japanese Government are still obscure, and there is every reason to believe that they find themselves in a quandary.
This new campaign of treaty revision piecemeal represents the methods and policies of the Peking Foreign Office and of Dr. Wellington Koo. They are doubtless straining and overstraining the text of the treaties, both in the Belgian and Japanese instances; and they are breaking away from the procedure laid down in the Washington treaties (of which China was a signatory) for gradual treaty revision in consultation with the principal Powers together. But, as the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires recently stated at the Foreign Office in a private conversation, the Chinese consider that the fulfilment of the Washington promises has been so long delayed that the treaties are to some extent invalidated, and they are losing patience. There is no doubt that Dr. Koo's attitude is supported by all Chinese people, and that he hopes to win personal popularity thereby.
The British Treaty of Tien-tsin is due for revision (as regards the tariff and com- mercial articles only), at the demand of either party, on the 24th October, 1930; the Mackay Treaty of the 5th September, 1902, may be revised as regards the tariff, at the demand of either party, on the 28th July, 1933; the American Commercial Treaty, which corresponds to our Mackay Treaty, may be revised in its entirety, at the demand of either party, on the 7th December, 1934. But if the Japanese Govern- ment give way to the present Chinese demand, there can be little doubt that we and the Americans will be faced by requests for similar radical revision before those dates fall due.
VI.-Piracy.
Owing to the disturbed conditions of China, brigandage and piracy are rife. There have always been pirates in South China, but their activities have recently been especially daring. The usual method is for a gang of pirates to come on board a ship as part of the usual mob of steerage passengers. They have smuggled their arms on board, and at a certain moment, they seize the ship, and force the officers to navigate it to Bias Bay the pirates headquarters near Hong Kong-where the pirates escape with their loot in the ship's boats, and leave the ship to its own devices. A paper recently submitted to the Cabinet (C.I.D. Paper No. 283-C of the 8th November, 1926) gives details of 17 piracies committed by the Bias Bay gang since 1921, including 7 in 1926 (totals which have now been raised to 19 and 9 respectively).
In various ways it has been attempted to make British ships secure against attack by pirates; and in the Committee of Imperial Defence paper mentioned above will be found a statement of Admiralty instructions regarding pursuit of pirates. His Majesty's ships have for many years been active in chasing pirates on the seas and rivers of South China, and on one occasion at least have co-operated with Chinese troops in an attack against pirates on land. But the Admiralty instructions specifically forbid the landing of officers and men on Chinese territory to search for or attack pirates, and provide that when pirates are once on shore fire can only be opened on them at the request of Chinese officials through His Britannic Majesty's consul and in co-operation with Chinese authorities.
The increase in the Bias Bay piracies caused the Governor of Hong Kong, in June 1926, to submit to the C'olonial Office the following recommendation:-
When next a piracy in Bias Bay is reported, it is proposed that two companies of a British regiment should be immediately despatched with such naval escort as may be available in accordance with a plan which is being prepared by the naval and military authorities. The expedition would proceed at once to the anchorage in Bias Bay, where pirated ships are moored, and would there land and endeavour to waylay the pirates while removing their loot. The troops would also search the pirate villages, and, if necessary, destroy them."
His Majesty's Minister, Peking, concurred generally in this suggestion, but would have preferred to see the occupation of Bias Bay by a small garrison, rather than the destruction of villages. He recommended that the Canton Government* be warned forthwith that action would be taken after the next piracy unless they them- selves acted meanwhile.
The Foreign Office, though concurring generally, have become increasingly anxious especially in view of the Wanhsien affair as to possible repercussions throughout China from punitive action by British troops; and in view of any interest which the League of Nations may take in the matter, they think that His Majesty's Government should be sure of their position in regard to international law. But they were prepared to instruct the acting consul-general at once to warn the Canton Government on the lines suggested by His Majesty's Minister. These instructions were referred to the Colonial Office for concurrence, and by them to the Committee of Imperial Defence. They are the subject of C.1.D. Paper No. 283-C referred to above; but they have not yet been approved.
Meanwhile, on the 16th November, a further piracy was committed against the British steamship "Sunning" by the Bias Bay gang, and, according to the first
As recently as last October, the Canton Government informed the acting cousul-general of their desire to protect foreign vessels against pirates and outlined a procedure for convoying such steamers by the Cantonese navy ("decrepit launches with very inadequate armament, which are themselves in danger of capture by priates").
526
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.