XXVIII

THE POLICY OF PRESERVATION

We have studied the diplomatic history of China, the policies of the Great Powers, especially of Japan, the impairments of China's sovereignty, and the questions arising since the World War. Using these facts and principles as a basis, we are now ready to offer suggestions for the construction of a foreign policy for China, applicable to the present international situation.

The first policy we would advocate for her is the policy of preservation. In view of her history, the policies of the Great Powers, particularly Japan, and the new situation which has arisen since the Great War, and especially in view of the rich and enormous natural resources which always tempt Foreign Powers, there is no policy which should claim the attention of the Chinese so much as that of preservation. Ever since the opening of China, the struggle has been between the Great Powers, with their aggressive designs and endeavors for exploitation and spoliation on the one hand and China, striving to preserve her territory and sovereignty, on the other. Shorn of all but a few dependencies, and her weakness exposed by her defeat by Japan in 1894-5, the Great Powers thereafter entered into a general scramble for leases and concessions, which threatened the very integrity of China. This was not checked until the blind uprising of the Boxers, the inauguration of the Open Door Doctrine by the United States, and the advent of the Chinese Revolution of 1911. Thereafter, the source of danger changed. Instead of international rivalry, the Powers pursued a policy of international coöperation and control, and the

only Power that seemed to have inherited the evil practices of the others was Japan. With her policy of territorial expansion in the direction of South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia, and with her design of political control, she stood as the foe of China's territorial integrity and political independence. With the advent of the New International Banking Consortium, however, which, as we have seen, is an incarnation of the Open Door Doctrine, Japan's policies of territorial expansion and political control are checked. The advent of the New Consortium, however, opens a new source of danger to China's national life, for in case of her default, China will be liable to foreclosure and control by the Consortium.

The first measure to be advocated in this policy is that China should become strong—that is, she should have a strong army and navy and a strong, united Government. As one studies the foreign relations of China, one cannot but be impressed with the fact that, underlying all her troubles, and what made foreign aggression possible, is her weakness. Leases and concessions would not have been wrested from China except for her inability to resist spoliation. The Twenty-one Demands would not have been presented save for her relative helplessness. While this does not exonerate the Powers that committed the aggressions, it should, nevertheless, point the moral that the weakness of China not infrequently furnished the temptation, and made possible the aggrandizement.

The sovereignty of a state cannot be effectively preserved, except by the possession of an efficient army and navy and a strong, united government. Look at the nations that have preserved their sovereignty intact and unchallenged. They are the states that possess a strong army and navy and a strong united government. Japan, in particular, furnishes the best illustration. Prior to her victory over China, she was subject to foreign aggression

as much as China, but subsequent to the Chino-Japanese War, and especially after the Russo-Japanese War, when she had demonstrated her prowess and ability, her sovereignty remained intact and immune from all external aggressions; what is more, she recovered her lost, or delegated rights of sovereignty.

For sovereignty presupposes competency. Just as a child or an invalid does not enjoy full sovereignty but is more or less subject to the control of the mature or strong, so, likewise, a state failing to possess power or to be competent to assume the tasks of a territorial sovereign does not enjoy full sovereignty but is liable to be subject to the control of the strong state or states. While it is true that the League of Nations guarantees the territorial integrity and political independence of each constituent state, which undoubtedly enhances the security of each state, it must, nevertheless, be remembered that the efficacy of the League, as it now exists, is yet to be proved, and that, in the near future, the preservation of the sovereignty of each state, it seems, will still necessitate the possession of adequate physical power and of a competent, responsible government.

Further, the protection of rights requires the possession of adequate remedies. In other words, if there is no remedy, there is practically no right; or, to put it in another way, right exists only so long as remedy exists. Prior to the advent of the League of Nations, there was no remedy for the protection of the rights of a nation other than her own armament and the assistance of her allies. It was for this lack of adequate remedies that the nations were driven to enter into the armament race and to stabilize the balance of power by counter-balancing alliances. It is also for want of adequate remedies that the titanic struggle of the World War came to pass. With the inauguration, however, of the League of Nations, which provides certain remedies for the protection of the rights of nations, thereby securing, or at least aiming to

secure, the rights of each member state, in so far as the remedies prove to be adequate, the rights of each state will undoubtedly be better protected and secured than before the formation of the League. But, despite great improvement, the rights of each nation are likely to be better and more adequately protected and secured by the possession of a strong army and navy and a stable united government, which can command respect and redress wrong, rather than by calling upon the slow-moving and cumbersome machinery of the League.

The second measure to be advocated respecting the policy of preservation has to do with foreign loans. The source of danger since the Chinese revolution of 1911 has changed from territorial partition to international control. Prior to the Chinese Revolution, the Powers struggled for concessions and would not have hesitated to dismember China, if possible and beneficial. Since, however, the Chinese Revolution, which symbolizes the rise of Chinese nationalism and hence the national determination of the Chinese people to preserve their heritage and liberty, the foreign Powers have seen fit to change their policy from international rivalry among themselves and territorial partition of China to one of international cooperation and control,' which was interrupted only by the Great War and which Japan endeavored to forestall by the imposition or acquisition of Japanese control, and which is, however, revived and resumed by the New Consortium representing the combined policy of the Powers. Hence the source of danger hereafter will lie, not in encroachments upon China's territorial integrity, except possibly from the direction of Japan, but rather in the loss or forfeiture of political independence through the abuse of foreign loans. For, in case of default or bankruptcy, the lending Powers would foreclose and control China's finances, which means the passing of the