|
Why did the United States propose the Open Door Policy at the moment when the imperialist powers were about to divide China among themselves? Some believe that this policy spared China from the fate of partition. Is it a valid proposition? |
|
See answer below. |
The terms of the Open Door Policy are summarised as follows:
(1) That (each power) will in no way interfere with any treaty port or any vested interests within any so-called “sphere of interest” or leased territory it may have in China.
(2) That the Chinese treaty tariff of the time being shall apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports within said “sphere of interest” (except “free ports”), no matter to what nationality it may belong, and that duties so leviable shall be collected by the Chinese Government.
(3) That it (each power) will levy no higher harbour dues on vessels of another nationality frequenting any port in such “sphere” than shall be levied on vessels of its own nationality, and no higher railroad charges over lines built, controlled, or operated within its “sphere” on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of other nationalities transported through such “sphere” than shall be levied on similar merchandise belonging to its own nationals transported over equal distances.
The Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) ended in France’s crushing defeat. It was forced to pay a 5 billion franc war indemnity and cede the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. France’s defeat, considered a terrible humiliation by the French, drove its thirst for revenge against Germany. Many historians regard the Franco-Prussian War as one of the remote factors that led to World War I in 1914.
After ascending the throne in 1888, Wilhelm II actively compete for colonies. Under his direction, Germany participated in acquiring naval leaseholds and spheres of influence in China, increasingly becoming a threat to the other imperialist powers. He was also committed to military expansion, particularly to the navy. In 1898, Germany initiated its massive naval building programme by passing its first Naval Law. Later, it continued to augment its navy by passing four more Naval Laws, alarming Britain. The early 20th century saw the commencement of an Anglo-German naval arms race in which each party struggled to build more dreadnoughts that were more advanced than the pre-dreadnoughts. Wilhelm II’s policies played a key role in causing World War I.
During his reign, Nicholas II pursued Pan-Slavic Policies and actively sought to bolster Russian influence over the Slavic countries of the Balkan Peninsula, particularly Serbia. This worried Britain and Germany. In the Far East, the competition for interests in China between Russia and Japan deteriorated the Russo-Japanese relations rapidly. Among the imperialist powers, France was Russia’s closest ally. The Sino-Russian Righteousness Victory Bank was a joint venture created by the two countries.
France, Britain, and Germany valued their interests in China, yet their core concern had always been Europe. Despite their total disagreement over the matters in China, they would not risk starting a war among themselves over their conflicting Chinese interests. Russia and Japan, however, were both situated close to China. They were unable to mediate their conflicting interests in China. Ultimately, their rivalry was settled by waging the Russo-Japanese War on the Chinese soil from 1904 to 1905.
The Open Door Policy, first advocated by the United States in 1899, was unanimously upheld by the imperialist powers. The policy was reiterated by the United States after the invasion of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the following year. For a few years after its introduction, the policy was upheld by the powers as they were all reluctant - for the time being - to conflict with one another over their Chinese interests. However, new developments such as the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War and the 1917 Russian Revolution eventually gave Japan an overwhelming advantage in the scramble for China. Although the Open Door Policy was never formally rescinded, it gradually faded into the background. While China narrowly escaped the fate of partition, it remained a semi-colony for a long time, and faced the growing danger of being taken over entirely by Japan.
|
|
Why did the United States propose the Open Door Policy at the moment when the imperialist powers were about to divide China among themselves? Some believe that this policy spared China from the fate of partition. Is it a valid proposition? |
|
|
The United States had extorted benefits from China time and again, for example by coercing China into signing the Treaty of Wangxia (《望廈條約》, Treaty of Wanghia) and the Treaty of Tientsin (《天津條約》, Treaty of Tianjin) after the two Opium Wars. While the imperialist powers were trying to divide China among themselves in the late 19th century, the United States was unable to claim a portion due to its preoccupation with the Spanish-American War. Once the war ended, it proposed the Open Door Policy as a way to ensure the door of China was open so that all countries could benefit equally from it. Moreover, after the American Civil War, the United States’ economy grew rapidly. By the late 19th century, it led the world in industrial output and became a well-endowed economic force for competition. The trade policies it advocated - opening doors and allowing countries equal opportunities - was in its interests of businesses in China. The proposition that the Open Door Policy spared China from the fate partition can be evaluated at different levels. On the international level, none of the imperialist powers was strong enough to claim all the interests in China to itself. The various parties were at odds with one another and had different interests and priorities. Thus, they could neither come to an agreement on partitioning China, nor start a war with one another over interests in China. As a result, at that time, the imperialist powers’ actions allowed China to maintain at least superficially its integrity and independence. In reality, they also kept China in a semi-colonial state by mandating that every nation was to profit equally from China. As this was in the interests of most countries, the ploy worked for a while. Hence, the Open Door Policy did help China avoid the fate of partition. On the national level, China’s narrow escape could not be entirely credited to the Open Door Policy. Some historians believe that the traditional Chinese belief that it was best to “use barbarians to control barbarians (以夷制夷)” might have been behind the Qing government’s decision to grant all foreign powers an equal share of the Chinese interests, as the government was incapable to defend itself from foreign invasions. This prevented any single power from taking over China entirely, while making it impossible for them to reach an agreement on partitioning China due to their existing conflicting interests. Ultimately, the various powers had no choice but to accept the United States’ Open Door Policy that enabled China to maintain its independence and integrity, if only in name. Besides the Open Door Policy, the resistance of Chinese civilians also played a key role in thwarting imperialist efforts of carving up China. |
