CHAPTER XXVIII

Rise of Japan and Germany Compared—Renewal of Anglo-Japanese Alliance—Japan and the Great War—Military and Naval Expansion—Japan and China—The Twenty-one Demands—Agreement with Russia regarding China—Lansing-Ishii Agreement—Effects of Great War on Situation in Far East.

The rise of Japan finds a parallel in that of Germany. There are, indeed, in the circumstances attending the development of the two countries not a few points of resemblance. In each case the direct cause was military success, and in each the long existence of feudalism had the effect of rendering a naturally warlike people submissive to the will of its rulers and responsive to the teaching of tradition. In each loyalty to the Throne was accompanied by an exaggerated form of patriotism, which needed only opportunity to become aggressive. In each, again, autocratic instincts, the centralization of authority, and the pressure of a powerful bureaucracy, combined to exalt the State at the expense of the individual. And though the personal rule of the Sovereign, so conspicuous in German history, was lacking in Japan, its absence was more than compensated for by the popular belief in the divine descent of the monarch.

Under these circumstances it is not surprising that Germany should have been chosen as the model for so many of the new institutions established in the course of the Meiji era, or that the modern Japan which ultimately took shape should in many of its characteristics come to bear a still closer resemblance to the country whence so much had been borrowed. A nation that in the process of its evolution draws upon others so freely as Japan has done inevitably imbibes ideas which affect its whole outlook on the world. What happened in early days, when Japan adopted the written language, ethics, and administrative system of China, occurred again, though in a lesser degree, when she became the pupil of Germany in matters relating to administration, law and military science. Thus the Constitution itself, framed, as we have seen, on a German model, reserved all real power in important matters of State to the Crown; while the adoption of the German system of military organization and training increased the influence of the army and encouraged the growth of militarism.

Describing the position acquired by Germany at the time when William II succeeded to the Throne as King of Prussia and German Emperor, Mr. S. J. Hill, at one time U.S. Ambassador in Berlin, in his _Impressions of the Kaiser_, says: “The unity of the German States was secure ... and the work of Bismarck was complete. That the Empire was an achievement of superior military force on the part of Prussia, and in no sense a creation of the German people, was universally understood.” His statement is confirmed by an article which appeared in August, 1918, in a German newspaper, the _Arbeiter Zeitung_. “It is,” it says, “to the Monarchy, the Junkerdom and the Army that the German _bourgeoisie_ owes the establishment of the new Empire, which was followed by so tremendous a development of economic strength, wealth and power.”

Japan at the moment of which we are speaking had, in like manner, achieved a unity of a kind unknown before. In the realization of her ambition to become a great Power she had triumphantly overcome all the difficulties inherent in the process of transition from conditions imposed by centuries of isolation to the new circumstances of a modern State. The work of the group of statesmen successively engaged in the task of reconstruction was, like that of Bismarck, complete. And it was generally acknowledged that all that had been accomplished had been done by the Government, and not by the Japanese people.

The Government clothed with this prestige was still a Government of two clans, which had gained their predominance by military strength, and retained it for the same reason; the portfolios of War and the Navy, and, with these, the control of the forces of the State, having become, so to speak, a monopoly of Satsuma and Chōshiū clansmen, who, as heads of these departments, were virtually independent of the Ministry of the day. The results of the dominating influence of the two clans in the administration, and the supremacy of German ideas in the army, had already shown themselves in the growth of a strong military party; in a cry for national expansion beyond existing frontiers, which seemed to have less reason behind it than the Pan-Slavist and Pan-German racial aspirations in Europe; in the development of the simple feudal maxims of _Bushidō_ into what came near to being a national creed; and in the increase of Chauvinistic writing in a section of the Press. Under these circumstances it was not surprising if from this time forward a louder note should be heard in diplomatic utterances, and a more aggressive tone appear in foreign policy.

This change of attitude in matters of foreign policy may be traced in the successive alterations that took place in the terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The original Agreement of 1902 related only to China and Korea, the contracting parties recognizing the independence of both States and declaring themselves “to be entirely uninfluenced by any aggressive tendencies in either country.” When the Agreement was renewed in August, 1905, its application was extended so as to include Eastern Asia and India. No more is heard of the independence of Korea, but Japan’s paramount rights in that country are recognized, subject only to the maintenance of the principle of “equal opportunity,” this recognition being followed three months later by the establishment of a Japanese protectorate. In the Agreement when renewed again in 1911 all reference to Korea disappears, that country having the year before been annexed to Japan.

Nor was this change of attitude due entirely to a consciousness of new power and increased prestige. In copying other countries as closely as was done the process of imitation had been carried so far as to extend to the adoption of principles which were not regarded with unqualified approval even in the countries where they originated. An instance in point is the enforcement by the Japanese Government in China of extra-territoriality, against which, when applied to Japan by Western Governments, it had constantly protested on the ground that the principle was incompatible with the sovereignty of a State.

The action of Japan on the outbreak of the Great War in August, 1914, at once dispelled all doubt which may have existed as to her participation in it. It also showed that she had no intention of playing a purely passive rôle. Within a fortnight after the commencement of hostilities between Great Britain and Germany the Japanese Government presented an ultimatum to the latter Power demanding the immediate withdrawal from Japanese and Chinese waters of all German vessels of war, and the evacuation by a given date of the leased territory of Kiaochow, with a view to its eventual restoration to China. The ultimatum was followed a week later by a declaration of war. It has been suggested that this swift action frustrated a design on the part of Germany to remove the leased territory from the field of hostilities by handing it back to China for the period of the war. Both in the ultimatum and in the declaration of war reference was made to the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which had been renewed in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war, and again in 1911, when an Arbitration Treaty was in process of negotiation between Great Britain and the United States. This marked allusion to the alliance pointed to the conclusion that Japan’s entry into the war was in pursuance of a special understanding between the Governments concerned. It was, however, no secret that the acquisition of Kiaochow by Germany had been as displeasing to Japan as the Russian occupation of Port Arthur, nor was it unreasonable to suppose that she would welcome the first occasion that might come to get rid of the obnoxious intruder. The opportunity furnished by her entry into the war was promptly seized. A strong expeditionary force, which included a contingent of British troops, was organized, and by the first week of November the German flag had ceased to float at Kiaochow. The Japanese occupation in the previous month of the Caroline, Marshall and Marianne, or Ladrone, groups of islands contributed to the elimination of Germany from the Pacific.

The war that gave Japan the excuse she needed to destroy the German foothold in China presented her with other opportunities of strengthening her position in the Far East. The magnitude of the military operations in Europe absorbed all the energies of the belligerent States which had interests in Eastern Asia. They were unable to devote much attention to Far Eastern affairs. Japan thus acquired a liberty of action which under other circumstances might possibly have been denied to her.

In an article contributed in 1914 to the November number of the _Shin Nippon_, or “New Japan,” a magazine published in Tōkiō, Marquis Ōkuma, who was then Premier, pointed out that the tendency of the times was such as to justify the assumption that in the distant future a few strong nations would govern the rest of the world, and that Japan must prepare herself to become one of these governing nations. And when addressing the Diet in the following month he stated, in explanation of the programme of naval and military expansion submitted to Parliament, that in order to make Japanese diplomatic dealings more effective an increase of force was needed. The lengths to which the Japanese Government was prepared to go in order to render its diplomacy more effective were disclosed when in January, 1915, the Japanese Minister in Peking presented directly to the President of the Chinese Republic the well-known twenty-one Demands.

Divided into several groups, the Demands in the first four included the assent of China to whatever might afterwards be agreed upon between Japan and Germany in regard to the German leased territory in Shantung taken by the Japanese in the previous November; the non-alienation by China to a third Power of any territory in that province or any island along its coast; concessions for railway construction, and the opening of further places for foreign trade in the same province; the extension from twenty-five to ninety-nine years—the term of the German lease of Kiaochow—of the terms of the former Russian leases of Port Arthur, Dalny and the South Manchurian Railway, and of the subsequent Japanese lease of the Antun-Mukden Railway; the control and management of the Kirin-Changchun Railway, when completed, to be granted to Japan for the same term of ninety-nine years; the grant of mining rights to Japan in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia; the consent of Japan to be obtained prior to permission being given to other foreigners to build railways, or make loans for railway construction in the territories in question, or prior to the pledging of local taxes in those territories as security for loans made to China by a third Power; Japan to be consulted before the employment by China in the same territories of any political, financial, or military advisers; concessions giving Japan practical control over the valuable coal and iron mines near Hankow belonging to the Hanyeiping Company, which had borrowed money from Japanese firms; and non-alienation to a third Power of any harbour, bay, or island on the coast of China. A further fifth group of Demands included an undertaking on the part of China to employ “influential Japanese as advisers in political, financial and military affairs”; to grant to Japanese hospitals, churches and schools in the interior of China the right of owning land—a right still withheld from foreigners in Japan; to place the police administration of all important places in China under joint Japanese and Chinese control, or, in lieu of this concession, to employ a large number of Japanese in the police departments of those places; to purchase from Japan 50 per cent, or more, of all munitions of war needed by China, or, in lieu of this concession, to arrange for the establishment in China of an arsenal under the joint management of Japanese and Chinese, the material required to be purchased from Japan; to grant further concessions for railway construction in the interior of China; to consult Japan before employing foreign capital for the working of mines, and the construction of railways, harbours and dockyards in the province of Fuhkien; and to grant to Japanese subjects the right to propagate religious doctrines in China. This last point concerned, of course, only Buddhist missionary propaganda, since the propagation of Shintō doctrine in a foreign country was obviously impossible. Its inclusion in the list of demands may seem strange in view of the religious indifference of the Japanese people. The reasons for it may be found in the desire of the Japanese Government to overlook no point which might serve to place Japan on a footing of equality in all respects with Western countries, and its wish to utilize the services of Buddhist missionaries to obtain information about matters in the interior of China.

The startling character of these Demands, no less than the peremptory manner in which they were made, provoked some public criticism even in Japan, and led to enquiries from more than one foreign Government. In the course of the negotiations which ensued at Peking the Chinese raised objections to several points. Eventually the last-mentioned group of Demands was withdrawn for the time being, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs explaining that they were never points on which his Government had intended to insist. Some modifications, moreover, were made in the other groups in order to meet Chinese objections. The Demands thus revised were presented afresh in April, a time limit being named for their acceptance, and on the 9th May the Chinese Government yielded to the pressure and signified its consent. The various points on which the Japanese Government insisted were finally settled on the 25th May by the conclusion of Treaties, the exchange of Notes and the making of Declarations, all bearing that date, as suited the convenience of Japan.

It is difficult to reconcile the assurances repeatedly given by Japanese statesmen as to the absence of any aggressive intentions in regard to China with the policy represented by the Demands above mentioned. Nor is it possible to deny that the pressure thus put upon China constituted just such an interference in the internal affairs of a neighbouring State as the Press of Japan had been the first to denounce.

The various engagements entered into between Japan and Russia in the years shortly following the Treaty of Portsmouth, more especially the Agreement of 1907, to which reference has already been made, were in themselves signs of a relaxation of the tension created by the Russo-Japanese war. And when in 1910 the two Powers concluded the Agreement for maintaining the _status quo_ in Manchuria, which blocked the Knox proposal for neutralizing all railways in that region, it became dear that they discerned the mutual advantage to be gained by working together in the Far East. This common policy, if it may be so called, was strengthened after the outbreak of the Great War by the conclusion of a secret Treaty in the summer of 1916, a moment when the war was not progressing very favourably for the Allies. By this Treaty, signed in the Russian capital, the contracting parties recognized that “the vital interests” of both required “the safeguarding of China from the political domination of any third Power whatsoever having hostile designs against Russia or Japan.” Whatever hopes may have been entertained in either country from the closer co-operation in China established by this Treaty were put an end to by the Russian revolution in the spring of 1917. It is unnecessary to emphasize the important bearing on Far Eastern affairs of this event, and of its sequel—the military collapse of Russia. The mere fact that China was thus freed from the danger of a combined aggression which she was powerless to resist speaks for itself.

In the autumn of the same year, by which time America had been drawn into the war, Japan, still intent on consolidating her position in the Far East, entered into negotiations at Washington with the United States in regard to the policy to be pursued by the two countries in China. The Japanese negotiator designated as special ambassador for this purpose was Viscount Ishii, who had recently been Minister for Foreign Affairs, and had previously visited America in an official capacity. By the understanding arrived at in November of that year, known as the Lansing-Ishii Agreement, the United States Government formally recognized, though without defining them, the special interests of Japan in China arising out of geographical propinquity—a concession which tended to extend the liberty of action which Japan had already acquired as a result of the war. The reason for the conclusion of this Agreement, as stated in the Notes exchanged on this occasion, “was in order to silence mischievous reports” that had from time to time been circulated. Another reason may well have been the wish to clear the ground for American and Japanese business co-operation in China, which had been advocated for some time in the Japanese Press, and received some measure of support from capitalists in both countries. The idea was not welcomed by the American community in China, and the efforts made in this direction do not appear to have been attended with any striking success during the continuance of the war.

In the military intervention of the Allied and Associated Powers in Siberia Japan took a prominent part. The course of events in Russia after the revolution caused uneasiness in Great Britain and France. When the Bolsheviks gained control of affairs, the German and Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war, who, owing to the disintegration of the former Russian armies had regained their liberty, and were free to uphold German ambitions, made common cause with them; and it was felt that there was danger of these combined forces spreading through Central and Eastern Siberia. How best to meet this danger, and at the same time to relieve the Czecho-Slovak troops, composed of ex-prisoners of war, who had refused to join the Bolsheviks and were retreating along the Trans-Siberian Railway, was a question which forced itself on the attention of the Governments concerned. The idea of sending an expeditionary force for this double purpose was first mooted in the summer of 1917, but it was not until a year later that an understanding was effected. In this military intervention six of the Allied and Associated Powers were represented, Japan, owing to her nearness to the scene of action, being the first to place troops on the spot.

Meanwhile, in view of the same danger and for the same objects, the Japanese and Chinese Governments had some months before (in May, 1918) concluded a secret military Agreement for Common Defence for the duration of the war, by which arrangements were made for the co-operation of Japanese and Chinese troops both in Chinese and Russian territory. In the following September “detailed stipulations” were attached to the Agreement. One of these provided that Chinese troops when operating in Russian territory should be under the control of a Japanese commander. A similar Naval Agreement was concluded at the same time. In pursuance of the Military Agreement considerable Japanese and Chinese forces were mobilized and employed in operations in Chinese territory and across the Russian border.

The conspicuous services rendered by the navy of Japan throughout the war earned the warm appreciation of her allies; the work done in clearing the seas of predatory enemy craft, convoying troopships from the British dominions to Europe and combating the submarine menace, deserving, as indeed it received, the highest praise. If at times there may have appeared to be a disposition in certain Japanese circles to anticipate the success of German arms, and if the pro-German sympathies of a section of the public may have seemed to assert themselves too loudly, allowance should be made for the large extent to which German ideas had been utilized in the making of modern Japan, and for the natural tendency of army officers to believe in the invincibility of the nation in whose military methods they had been trained.

The Peace Conference which assembled in Paris in January, 1919, set the seal on Japanese ambitions. The representatives of Japan took part in all important deliberations on a footing of recognized equality with those of Great Britain, France, Italy and the United States, while, as one of the Great Powers composing the Supreme Council, Japan has had a voice in the decisions that have guided the destinies of the world.