With the preceding discussion of principles as manifested by the
teachings of Jesus Christ, we may consider briefly their application
to the problems of the Far East and the limitation of armaments.
The three countries most concerned are Great Britain, the United
States, and Japan. Of these, the first two claim to be Christian, and
should therefore be willing to follow the teachings of the Founder
of their religion. The third claims that her aim is to take the best
from the civilization of the other two, and, wherever possible,
to improve it. If all of them are really sincere and a correct
analysis has been made of Jesus' teachings, they may well prove to
be satisfactory bases for discussion and agreement. If the powers
can agree, the conference will be a success.
All of the problems of the Far East, from the point of view of the
United States, seem to be centred about Japan, her acquisitions
of territory, her claims regarding her interests and rights, her
attitude toward other nations and the proper methods of procedure;
and, on the other hand, from the point of view of Japan, one might
in like manner assert that the problems of the Far East seem to be
centred about the United States, her acquisitions of territory, her
claims regarding her interests and rights, her attitude toward other
nations, and the proper methods of procedure.
It is frequently stated by those who are discussing the nature of
the forthcoming conference that the great problem of the Far East
is China, and minor problems are Siberia and the islands of the
Pacific; while still others speak of immigration and racial equality
as the most important problems to be discussed. It will readily
be seen, from our point of view, that if we eliminate Japan as an
active factor, the other problems would not be of so serious import
for international discussion, especially in connection with the
possible limitation of armaments; whereas from the point of view of
Japan, if the United States were eliminated as an important factor,
such discussions would be of minor import. She could take care of
the difficulties herself. There seems to be a conflict of views
mainly between Japan and the United States, with Great Britain and,
to a less degree, the other nations invited as vitally interested
umpires, whose voices will largely decide, and who wish not to offend
either Japan or America.
A complete discussion of these vital problems would involve careful
and sympathetic consideration of questions that differ widely in
form and nature, yet may be greatly simplified by the application
of these principles of Jesus to their solution. Such a study would
involve a sketch of the political history of the Far East since the
China-Japan War, with notice taken of earlier conflicts over China,
giving motives and methods of aggressions of various nations with
their results; the marvellous expansion of Japan in both territory
and influence, with a judgment as to her real needs for territory
and materials and consideration of satisfying these needs; and the
present and probable effects upon the world of the continuation of
her policies; a similar study of the acquisition of territory and
extension of influence in the Far East of the United States, Great
Britain, and the other nations, and the probable future effects of
the continuation of their policies--all to be judged in the light
of these principles of Jesus: truth; development of personality of
individual human beings; the Golden Rule, care for the welfare of
humanity as the test of right and wrong.
To-day I may only indicate the method and nature of such study, and
let each follow out the thought to a conclusion.
1. Truth: While every care should be taken to be courteous and
considerate and just to all, if Jesus' principles are right the
future policies of the nations must discourage militaristic methods
of deceit and trickery, propaganda of falsehood, secret diplomacy
that is misleading, and the employment of force or threats, except
in war. This can best be done by taking action which shows that such
methods do not succeed and will not be tolerated in international
relations. An "open-door" policy freely entered into (and this
has been repeatedly affirmed by all) must be kept by all, and, if
necessary, enforced by joint action. Promises regarding territory and
treaties entered into freely must be kept, while those extorted by
force should be considered invalid.
2. The spread of democracy in the sane sense of the word must be
recognized and encouraged. World history under the teachings of
Jesus shows this trend, and the outcome of the World War makes it
clear that imperialism cannot survive. All nations must recognize
this fact, and kings and emperors must retain their thrones by
becoming the leaders of their peoples, whom they will train to
assume responsibility. The nations whose spirit and policies are
most intelligently and most sincerely devoted to developing stable
self-government among their peoples must extend their influence, and
those with other views must change or their governments will in no
long time perish. Again, it is practically certain that any policy
that is at variance with this principle will certainly lead to war
in the not distant future--not to peace. These facts should have
influence in the conference in determining future policies.
3. The policy should be encouraged of promoting the welfare of weak
and backward peoples, not by selfish exploitation, but by aiding them
to fit themselves for the responsibilities of self-government in all
ways practicable, while not encouraging a movement toward a weak
independence that would endanger the peace of the world.
4. All these questions must be handled--if the teaching and practice
of Jesus are to be followed--in the light of reason and common sense
and the practicable. To attempt to reverse actions of generations
ago, whatever our views as to their justice then, might well do
more harm than good. The annexations of Hong Kong, Indo-China, the
Philippine Islands, Corea, are questions that cannot and ought not
to come before the Washington conference. The ways in which the
different nations have administered those territories may well be
factors in determining what further opportunities should be given
to the nations concerned. On the other hand, questions of grave
importance are still pending and others involving the same principles
may well arise.
(_a_) All the nations represented at the conference have formally
agreed to the open-door policy in China. If that policy has been
violated by any of the powers, the facts should be clearly brought
out and recognized. On the basis of these facts, measures should be
taken to insure a strict observance of that policy in the future.
Presumably international inspection by international commission,
including, of course, China as a party, probably as chairman, or
possibly international control, will be needed in certain particulars.
(_b_) The treaties between China and Japan in 1915 and 1918 (which
China claims were obtained by threats and show of force against a
friendly power in time of peace) have not been recognized by the
United States as valid so far as they concern the rights of America
or American citizens, or the territorial integrity or the sovereignty
of China, or the principle of the "open door." These treaties involve
the extension of power and influence of Japan in Manchuria, Inner
Mongolia, and Fukien province of China, as well as her official
influence with the Chinese Government and the entire question of
Shantung province and Japan's hold on Kiao Chow. The United States
Government as well as China have consistently refused to consider
these questions closed. They should now be considered and settled in
accordance with the principles laid down. The truth should be fully
brought out and recognized; measures should be taken looking toward
the best development of the peoples concerned, so as to fit them for
self-government in due time. As fast as possible they should be given
the responsibility of self-determination. If not ready now, steps
should be taken to prevent them from oppression or loss of their
territory, while they are encouraged to find their way.
(_c_) The welfare in the long run of the peoples concerned, the
welfare of humanity through them, should be the test of right and
wrong in making these decisions and working out these plans. In case
of differing opinions, based not on self-interest but on sincere
conviction, if the history of twenty centuries is to count, the
opinion should prevail of those nations whose practices have followed
most nearly the principles of Jesus.
The same tests may be applied to conditions in Siberia, to Yap, and
the islands of the Pacific whose status has not yet been agreed to
by all the powers, and to the other problems raised by conditions
in China.
Two questions more raised by Japan at different times may be briefly
touched upon: Oriental immigration into Western countries and the
race problem. Can the New Testament help on these?
Japan claims that she is already overpopulated; that the countries
to which her people wish to go object to their coming, and that
the countries to which they might go (Formosa, their own northern
islands, Hokkaido and Saghalien, Siberia, Manchuria) are not suited
to them. The facts are naturally that they wish to go to countries
whose standards of living are higher than theirs. Then they have the
advantage in competition. But such advantage is at the expense of
those countries, whose standards will be lowered. They do not wish to
go to countries whose standards are lower than theirs. The advantage
in competition would then be against them, as experience in Corea and
Manchuria has shown, and they must lower their standards to succeed.
That they are naturally unwilling to do. For the same reason they
exclude Chinese and Corean laborers from Japan in actual practice.
In my judgment they are wise in so doing.[3]
It is the common economic conflict of standards of living where the
fittest, in the sense of the ones who will produce the most at the
lowest rates, because they have diligence and thrift, and are willing
to live on lower standards, survive, and those who insist upon
higher standards must go. It is perfectly evident, and to my mind
entirely proper and in strict accord with the spirit of the teachings
of Jesus, that every effort should be made to maintain the higher
standards to the utmost extent possible, and that the methods of
competition that should be admitted in connection with the principles
of expansion should be those which would further the welfare
of the populations, including the opportunities for developing
intellectually, and gradually exercising more and more of a capacity
for a self-determination of policies. This would not exclude Japanese
from Corea or Manchuria, if they will deal fairly with those peoples.
On the other hand, the nations that object to the admission of the
Japanese on the grounds that their coming in large numbers will lower
their standards of living and introduce a type of civilization that
on the whole they feel to be lower than their own, are not therefore
unchristian, provided proper methods of exclusion are followed.
Japan is likewise fully justified in adhering to her policy of
excluding from her own territory those laborers, especially Chinese
and Coreans, who, if allowed to come in large numbers, because of
their lower standards of living, would lower the standards of living
and the opportunity, in consequence, for cultural development of the
Japanese people.
As the Japanese Government has insisted upon limiting the competition
of some foreign corporations that were obtaining too much control of
certain industries in Japan (such as the American Tobacco Company),
and insisted upon rigid control of the foreign companies doing
business there, so it seems fully justified for the Chinese and those
sympathetic with them to object to the dominating control by the
Japanese, at the expense of the natives and of foreign competitors,
of the territory of Kiao Chow, of the administration of the South
Manchurian Railway, if the charges of discrimination are true, and
of the methods of administration of Corea. I am not raising now
the question of the legal right in any of these cases, but of the
Christian principle of improving the welfare of the masses of the
peoples of the countries concerned through the opportunities for
developing to the highest degree the individuals.
Going now to the question of what the Japanese can do to maintain
their own standards and improve them, unless they are allowed
to enter freely in large numbers the territories of those whose
standards of living are higher, three suggestions may be made:
First, they may become, at home, as they have already shown their
capacity to become, more of an industrial nation, in which case the
increase in the density of the population would be an advantage in
competition rather than a disadvantage, and in which--owing to the
rapid improvement of industrial conditions--the standards of living
could be improved rather than lowered. The best illustrations of
the success of this policy are found in Great Britain and Germany,
both of which improved very rapidly with an increasing density of
population.
The second suggestion is that in the countries readily open to
Japanese immigration, where the population is not so dense as in
Japan, _i.e._, in certain parts of Corea and Manchuria, in Hokkaido,
and in other countries that might be mentioned (other parts of
China and Siberia), a similar policy might well be followed. This
does not mean political control, which is not necessary, but
Japanese immigration. If they will undertake economic and industrial
development, there will be room for a large and increasing population.
A third suggestion has to do with the very rapid increase in the
population of Japan, owing to the high birth-rate. It is well known
that in countries where the standard of living is rapidly rising,
the birth-rate rapidly falls. This is a normal consequence of
the increased care for their children, their training and their
education, on the part of parents, with their own improved standards
of living and the desire to give to their children the best which is
possible. If Japan improves her industrial standards, unless there
are some special efforts made either through religious influence
or governmental influence to the contrary, the birth-rate will
normally decrease. A militaristic nation wishes a high birth-rate, an
industrial nation gets a low rate. Already there has been discussed
in Japan, by their most thoughtful citizens, the question of birth
control and the inculcation of the knowledge regarding sane and
proper methods of birth control among the more ignorant classes of
the population. It is a question that may well be given thoughtful
consideration not only in Japan but in other countries.
It is, however, urged frequently that the Japanese cannot expand
industrially unless they are in a position to secure the raw
materials for their industries that are not produced in Japan itself.
This is the usual defense that is given for many of the aggressive
acts of Japan in securing control of coal and iron mines in various
parts of China. Other nations, such as France, Great Britain, the
United States, have imported large quantities of the essentials
for industrial development, such as the raw materials mentioned,
and petroleum and food-supplies, without feeling the necessity of
political control. For decades the population of Great Britain, it
has been known, could not survive many months without the importation
of large quantities of foodstuffs, while her cotton industry has
been dependent upon the United States for its raw material for many
decades. There would be no objection whatever to Japan importing coal
and iron ore and other products from China in as large quantities as
she needed in the ordinary course of business for the support of her
industries; and if her policy were an industrial one rather than a
politically imperialistic one, her industries would be as safe as are
those of Great Britain. They would be much safer than during the last
years, when their acts have produced the Chinese boycott.
From the viewpoint of the United States, the difficulty in the
Japanese expansion has been the apparent insistence on the part
of her friends that she must have for her protection a political
control over raw materials while her competitors along certain lines
are satisfied with industrial access to raw materials; and also
her insistence upon forcing her people into competition where they
would lower the standards of living of other nations when they might
readily find plenty of opportunity for work at higher standards,
though it would require capital, to the benefit of not only
themselves but of the populations who would welcome them.