XVI

THE TWENTY-ONE DEMANDS AS AN EXPONENT OF JAPAN'S POLICIES IN CHINA

So far we have considered the five policies of Japan in China-economic exploitation, territorial expansion, paramount influence, political control and the Asiatic Monroe Doctrine. We shall now examine an historic document which bears all the earmarks of these five policies and which has since become the best exponent thereof; I mean the original Twenty-one Demands.

This document was produced under conditions of world politics which rendered it the fullest and clearest revelation of Japan's intentions and desires in regard to China. It was presented to the Chinese Government, as we all know, on January 18, 1915, when the World War was raging in Europe. In consequence of the war, the great Powers receded from the international rivalry in China and plunged into a life-and-death grapple on the battlefields of Europe, with practically no energy left for further aggressions or exploitation in China. The only great neutral Power as yet not involved was the United States, but she was none the less absorbed in the progress of the European War and had little attention to give to affairs of the Far East. It was this crisis in the world situation, when the tide of European aggression had just ebbed, and when the United States had just relaxed in her resolution to enforce her Open Door doctrine in China, that Japan took advantage of.

When the Powers were present, or free from wars among themselves, Japan dared not disclose her designs as to China, for fear she might meet the united opposition of the Powers; and so she had to wear the mask

and fall in line with the Powers in their common policy of international coöperation, and be contented with her spheres of influence, limited as they might be. But when the World War came she took advantage of the unusual opportunity, or such an opportunity would "not occur for hundreds of years to come."1 Casting aside all ordinary restraints, and counting upon success in her measure, in a mad rush to solve the Chinese Question at this juncture, she unpremeditatedly discarded her mask and exposed her full intentions and designs regarding China, as we shall see in the original Twentyone Demands.

Further, the original Twenty-one Demands represented the common attitude of the majority of the Japanese in regard to China. While there were some who had the moral courage and conviction to denounce them, the demands were nevertheless, on the whole, well supported by the greater part of the electorate. When the negotiations specting the Twenty-one Demands were in session, Count Okuma dissolved the Diet on an issue of army increase, and appealed to the people for a new House of Representatives that would support him.2 In his campaign, he purposely avoided the issue of army increase, but founded his plea for support on the value and importance of his China policy. The returns gave him an overwhelming victory. Supporting the Government were the Doshi-kai with 150 votes, the Chusai-kai with 36 and the Independents with 62 most of whom were favorable to the Government. Opposing the Government were the Seiyu-kai with 106 votes and the Kokuminto with 27, thus giving the Government a clear majority of about fifty. And when the special session convened on May 27, 1915, while it was too late to pass. upon the China policy, as the negotiations respecting the Twenty-one Demands had already been concluded by the Treaties of May 25, 1915, the House nevertheless passed

the budget estimate for increasing the appropriations for army and navy.3 Thus, the policy upon which Count Okuma had insisted in December of strengthening the armed forces of the country "in order that our diplomatic dealings may become more effective" received the legislative sanction, or in other words, Count Okuma's China policy as represented by the Twenty-one Demands, or in short, the Twenty-one Demands themselves, received the support of the majority of the Japanese electorate. It can, therefore, be said that the Twenty-one Demands represented the common attitude of the Japanese people regarding China, excepting possibly a small minority.5

Besides, when the failure to impose on China Group V of the Twenty-one Demands had subsequently exposed Japan to the bitter antagonism and hatred of the Chinese and the censure of the Powers, the criticism of the Japanese was directed upon the way in which the demands were presented and negotiations handled, rather than upon intrinsic right or wrong of the demands themselves. It can be said that the majority of the Japanese, even after the failure of Group V, still believed that the Twenty-one Demands were right and necessary from the point of view of the welfare of Japan, and what criticism they offered was therefore aimed at the means by which the ends were to be attained, rather than the ends themselves. As a fair illustration, let us note the statement: "Not that these demands were in principle wrong and unjustifiable, but because they were pressed upon China in utter disregard of the susceptibilities of the nation whose friendship she had been professing to value." And this attitude, as we have noticed, was reflected in the policy of Count Terauchi, who, succeeding Count Okuma, changed the tactics from a direct and open attack through diplomatic channels to a covert and indirect assault through loans, arms deal, and alliance with pro-Japanese officials in Peking.

When we submit the original Twenty-one Demands to a close scrutiny, we find that the division into five groups was done in rough correspondence with the five policies of Japan. Whether the Japanese statesmen who drafted them originally did so consciously or unconsciously, we cannot tell, but whatever may be the original purpose of the division, the fact remains nevertheless significant that the fivefold division should coincide roughly with Japan's fivefold policy, as we shall see.

The first group relating to Shantung, which extends Japanese influence into that Province, represents the policy of paramount influence. The second group regarding South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia exemplifies the policy of territorial expansion. The third group as to the Hanyehping Company symbolizes the policy of economic exploitation. The fourth group dealing with the non-alienation of China's coast represents the "Asiatic Monroe Doctrine." The fifth group represents the policy of political control.

If, however, we should group the demands according to the five policies, then the conclusion is all the more evident that they embody all the five policies of Japan and therefore constitute the best exponent thereof."

THE POLICY OF ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION

GROUP II

Article 4: The Chinese Government agrees to grant Japanese subjects the right of opening the mines in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia. As regards what mines are to be opened, they shall be decided upon jointly.

GROUP III

Article 1: The two Contracting Parties mutually agree that when the opportune moment arises the Hanyehping Company shall be made a joint concern of the two na

tions, and they further agree that without the previous consent of Japan, China shall not by her own act dispose of the rights and property of whatsoever nature of the said company nor cause the said company to dispose freely of the same.

Article 2: The Chinese Government agrees that all mines in the neighborhood of those owned by the Hanyehping Company shall not be permitted, without the consent of the said company, to be worked by other persons outside of the said company; and further agrees that if it is desired to carry out any understanding which, it is apprehended, may directly or indirectly affect the interests of the said company, the consent of the said company shall first be obtained.

<

THE POLICY OF TERRITORIAL EXPANSION

GROUP II

Article 2: Japanese subjects in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia shall have the right to lease or own land required either for erecting suitable buildings for trade and manufacture or for farming.

Article 3: Japanese subjects shall be free to reside and trade in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia and to engage in business and in manufacture of any kind whatsoever.

GROUP V

Article 3: Inasmuch as the Japanese Government and the Chinese Government have had many cases of dispute between Japanese and Chinese police to settle cases which caused no little misunderstanding, it is for this reason necessary that the police departments of important places (in China) shall be jointly administered by Japanese and Chinese or that the police departments of these places shall employ numerous Japanese, so that they may at the same time help to plan for improvement of the Chinese Police Service.