252
5
253
11.
When in November last the senior consul at Canton sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the protest of the representatives of the treaty Powers in l'eking against the levy of the Canton surtaxes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs refused to accept it, and in his reply made the following statement :—
"My Government does not recognise the existence of the senior Minister of the interested Powers represented at Peking,' who lacks juridical sanction, nor are the status and relations of the same Powers vis-à-vis my Government regulated on a basis which can properly entitle them to raise the question of 'a direct violation of the treaties.
+
I have the honour to add that my Government is ready to discuss this and other questions as and when all or any of the Powers represented at Peking realise that the national power and authority has long ceased to be exercised in Peking, and that the revolutionary and constructive forces of Nationalist China have now transferred this national power and authority to my Government.“
12.
יי
་་
In a recent article in the Canton Gazette." which is the official organ of the Canton Government, the following statement appears :—
There is talk of recognition, but there is to be no misunderstanding about" this recognition. The views of the Nationalists have been clearly expressed several times. Nevertheless, there seems to be a proposal which is gaining ground among foreign imperialists to divide this country into many local Governments, and then extend to each Government a sort of recognition with such stipulations and reservations as are possible when treating with such local authorities. We trust that the removal of the Nationalist capital to Wuchang will put an end to these machinations for the division of China, in order tö safeguard treaty rights."
13. In a recent conversation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Canton, His Majesty's acting consul-general said that he wished to know for his own information and in case His Majesty's Government should seek his advice, what exactly the Nationalist Government desired at the present time from the Powers. Mr. Chen replied: Recognition as the Government of China."
14. It appears from the foregoing paragraphs that the only recognition which the Canton Government desires is recognition as the Government of China, and that it would not accept recognition as a Government co-equal with any other Government in China.* It has, however, as yet made no formal request to be recognised as the Government of China, or as anything else. In these circumstances, whatever the facts of the situation may be, it would be out of place for His Majesty's Government to volunteer such, or indeed, any recognition. They ought rather to wait for a claim to be formally advanced and then to consider the claim on its merits with due regard to the facts of the case and their treaty obligations.
The Treaty Position.
15. There are two provisions of the Nine-Power Washington Treaty which have a bearing on the question of recognition. These are article 1 (1) and (2), which reads as follows:-
L
The contracting Powers other than China agree
(1.) To respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China;
(2.) To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable Government
and article 7, which is as follows:-
:
The contracting Powers agree that whenever a situation arises which in the opinion of any one of them involves the application of the stipulations of the present treaty and renders desirable discussion of such application, there shall be full and frank communication between the contracting Powers concerned."
16. The terms of article 1 raise the question whether this undertaking embodied therein means that His Majesty's Government have bound themselves to uphold the unity of China; whether, for example, if Canton definitely broke away and started a Republic of South China, His Majesty's Government are debarred by the treaty from recognising the new State.
• The views of Mr. Chen have since been further elucidated by Mr. Lampson (see paragrapli 28 below).
17. The following is Mr. Malkin's answer to this question:
'Article 1 (1) of the General China Treaty is really in the nature of a self-denying ordinance, and its object was to exclude operations like the Japanese occupation of Shantung. If Canton were to set up as an independent State by agreement with China, there is in my opinion nothing in the article in question which would prevent the signatories from recognising the new State; and further, if, without the consent of the Central Government, Canton broke away and succeeded in establishing itself as an independent State in circum- stances which, apart from the treaty, would entitle it to recognition by other States, I think the position would be the same. On the other hand, I think the article does debar the signatories from encouraging separatist movements in Chinese provinces, or from anything in the nature of premature recognition of a rebellions Gorernment as an independent State; otherwise it would be open to any signatory to get round the effect of the article by assisting the rebellious province to establish its independence.
Further, all that the article obliges the signatories to do is to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial and administrative integrity of China, and if these things do not exist it is not possible to respect them; therefore, if China broke up into a lot of mutually independent fragments, the signatories could not be precluded from recognising the situation thus created."
18.
As regards article 7, it has been the practice in the past when the question of the recognition of successive Peking Governments has arisen for the represen- tatives of the Treaty Powers in Peking to discuss the question, and if possible to reach a unanimous decision. A good illustration of this occurred in December 1924 when Tuan Chi-jui assumed office as Provisional Chief Executive.
The question
of his recognition was discussed by the representatives of the treaty Powers, who issued a statement to the following effect :—
The undersigned representatives at Peking of the United States of America, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the Netherlands. declare in the name of their Governments that, taking note of the communication addressed to them on the 24th November by the Wai-chiao Pu announcing the assumption of office by the Provisional Chief Executive, and of the mandates issued by the new Chief Executive on the same day, they will lend their full support to the Provisional Government in Peking under the present Provisional Chief Executive, and that they have entered into de facto relations with the same, on the understanding that the Provisional Government has been constituted with the concurrence of the nation for the purpose of taking charge of the affairs of the Chinese Republic pending the establishment of a formal Government representing all the provinces and parties in the republic, and on the understanding that it is the intention of the Provisional Government, and of any formal Government that may hereafter be established, to respect and duly fulfil all treaties, conventions and other engagements entered into by the former Manchu and Republican Governments, and all rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by foreigners in China by virtue of such international engagements which according to international usage can only be modified by the mutual consent of the contracting parties. They further declare that on the above understanding their Governments are willing and anxious to proceed as soon as practicable with the carrying out of the measures contemplated in the Washington treaties and resolutions.”
19.
ན
The plain sense of article 7. supported by the evidence of past practice, is that the article imposes an obligation on all the signatory Powers of frank and full communication with one another before so important a step as the recognition of a new Government in China is taken either unanimously or unilaterally; and it is in this sense that is Majesty's Government interpret it. Such consultation would presumably take the form of notification of their intended action by the Power contemplating such a step either by direct communication or through the more usual and convenient method of a discussion at a meeting of the representatives of the treaty Powers in Peking. Having fulfilled their obligation to the other Powers in one of these ways the Power would of course be free to act independently in the event of some or all of the other Powers refusing to join in the proposed action.
Page 230Page 231
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.