No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Why Germany Never Signed the Nine-Power Treaty
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
In the fall of 1925, representatives of the powers which had attended the Washington Conference met in Peking for the long-delayed discussion of China's claim to tariff autonomy. Germany was not one of this group and received no special invitation; however, the Germans hoped that they would be allowed to participate, especially since in European affairs they had been given a place of equality in the October Locarno Conference. Consequently, as a step in this direction, Berlin readily accepted an invitation from the United States to adhere to the Nine-Power Treaty of the Washington Conference. To the surprise of both countries, China took offense. This episode, which passed almost unnoticed behind the scenes of the Tariff Conference, revealed Germany and the United States pursuing somewhat similar policies against which the Chinese foreign minister protested. It disclosed Chinese suspicion and distrust, not only of their policies, but of the Nine-Power Treaty as well.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1942
References
1 Provision had been made for this conference in Article II of the Customs Treaty, signed at the Washington Conference, Feb. 6, 1922, and ratified Aug. 5, 1925; See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1922, (Washington, 1938), vol. 1, 284–85. (Hereafter FR).
2 Not to be confused with the Customs Treaty signed on the same date. Its provisions bound the signatories to respect China's sovereignty and independence, territorial and administrative integrity, and to uphold the principle of the Open Door. Full text in FR, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 276–81.
3 Documents recently published by the Department of State provide some new information on this subject, which hitherto has received little attention, and at the time was practically ignored by the American press. FR, 1926 (Washington, 1941), vol. 1, pp. 1001–23. A brief notice appears in Willoughby, W. W., Foreign rights and interests in China (Rev. edit.; Baltimore, 1927), vol. 1, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
4 Sino-German Agreement of May 20, 1921; League of Nations treaty series, no. 261 (1922) vol. 9, pp. 283–89.
5 Betz, Heinrich (German consul-general in Tientsin, 1922–36), “Der Machtkampf in Fernen Osten: Das Neun-mächte Abkommen von 1922 und seine historische-politische bedeurung,” Berliner Monatshefte, 17 (Aug., 1939), 716.Google Scholar Also see Mossdorf, Otto, “Deutschland und die Neunmächtevertrag,” Deutsche Allgrmeine Zeitung, Oct. 14, 1937.Google Scholar
6 This article empowered the United States to send invitations to “powers not signatory to the present treaty, which have governments recognized by the signatory powers and which have treaty relations with China”. For the form of invitation see FR, 1925, 1, 762. Other powers receiving invitations at the same time were Austria, Bolivia, Chile, Denmark, Norway, Persia, Peru, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Willoughby, , op. cit. vol. 1, pp. 24–25Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit., p. 716.Google Scholar A competent account of these developments is to be found in Pollard, Robert T., China's foreign relations, 1917–1931 (New York: Macmillan, 1933)Google Scholar, passim.
7 Betz, , op. cit., p. 728.Google Scholar
8 Scheffer, Paul, “Deutsche politile und China,” Berliner Tageblatt (Wochen-Ausgabe für aus-land und uebersee), vol. 15, no. 11 (Mar. 11, 1926), p. 1.Google Scholar
9 Schurman, to Kellogg, , Mar. 10, 1925Google Scholar, FR, 1925, I, pp. 637–38.
10 MacMurray to Kellogg, Sept. 30, 1925, ibid., vol. 1, pp. 851–52.
11 Scheffer, op. cit.; also his article “Deutschland und das Washington-Abkommen,” Berliner Tageblatt (Wochen-Ausgabe), vol. 15, no. 13 (April 1, 1926), pp. 1–2. The well-known journalist wrote both articles in Peking, where he spent several months.
12 Scholz, Oskar, “Die bedeutung der Pekinger Zollkonferenz für Deutschland,” Wirtschaftsdienst, 11 (Jan. 22, 1926), pp. 83–84Google Scholar; Scheffer, “Deutschland und das Washington-Abkommen.”
13 Treaties and agreements with and concerning China, 1919–1929, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1929 pp. 47 ff. especially p. 49.
14 In this connection, the “repatriation” of Germans in China in the spring of 1919 was recalled. China had had no interest in taking this harsh action, but was forced to do so by pressure from Allied countries who hoped thus to deal a death-blow to German trade. Scholz, , op. cit., p. 84.Google Scholar The Chinese minister in Berlin gave assurances that Germany had nothing to fear from China's exercise of tariff autonomy; Berliner Tageblatt, Nov. 27, 1925.
15 Grew to MacMurray, Oct. 3, 1925, FR, 1925, vol. l, p. 854. The American minister in Peking gave full support to this position, MacMurray to Kellogg, Sept. 30, 1925, ibid., pp. 851–52. According to Article VIII of the Customs Treaty governments should be invited to adhere whose treaties with China provided for a tariff on imports and exports not to exceed five per centum ad valorem. This was not true of the Sino-German agreement of 1921.
16 Scheffer, , “Deutschland und das Washington-Abkommen,” p. 1Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit., p. 726.Google Scholar
17 Schurman to Kellogg, Dec. 23, 1925, FR, 1926. vol. 1, pp. 1001–02. Trautmann subsequently rose to the head of the Eastern section of the Foreign Ministry. In 1931 he went to China as minister, and became the first German ambassador to China in 1935, and was recalled in May, 1938.
18 Kellogg to Schurman, Jan. 16, 1926, ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1003–04.
19 This was owing to insistence of legal advisers in the Foreign Ministry: “Die Reichsgesetze werden vom Reichstag beschlossen.” Schurman to Kellogg, Feb. 6, 1926, ibid., vol. 1, p. 1014. Also see Mossdorf, op. cit.
20 The Sino-German treaty of 1921 had been passed by the Reichstag without any discussion. Official quarters hoped for and expected quick ratification; Scholz, , op. cit., p. 84.Google Scholar
21 Berliner Tageblatt, Dec. 29, p. 2; Peking Leader, Dec. 31, p. 1; Ch'en Pao (Peking Morning Post), Dec. 31, p. 3, added a summary of the treaty provisions but without any comment.
22 Article by Peking correspondent, March 9, in Frankfurter Zeitung, Apr. 13, 1926, p. 3.
23 Dec. 30, 1925, p. 10.
24 Japan Weekly Chronicle (Kobe), Jan. 7, 1926, p. 23.
25 A Chinese version of Izvestia's interpretation appeared in the Ch'en Pao, Jan. 8, p. 3, under the heading: “Soviet Government says—Germany reverts to old imperialistic policy in joining Nine-Power Treaty.” An English translation was printed in the Peking Leader of same date, p. 4.
26 However, the days of Bolshevist influence in both Canton and Peking were numbered. Already resentment was being displayed against “Bolshevist imperialism,” and in Canton, under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek, the forces opposed to the extreme left of the Kuomintang were preparing to expel the Communists. The Week in China (weekly edition of the Peking Leader), (Feb. 13, 1926), pp. 2–3; Fischer, Louis, The Soviets in world affairs (London, 1930), vol. 2, p. 651.Google Scholar
27 Peking, Leader, Jan. 10, 1926, p. 6.Google Scholar
28 MacMurray, to Kellogg, , Feb. 25, 1926, FR, 1926, vol. 1, p. 1018.Google Scholar
29 Ch'en Pao, Jan. 21, 25, and 29, reported diplomatic activity in Washington and Berlin, but is very vague about time. American documents, however, reveal that the decision of the Peking government was reached by Jan. 5; FR, 1926, vol. 1, p. 1003.
30 Schurman to Kellogg, Feb. 6, 1926, ibid., vol. 1, p. 1014.
31 Ch'en Pao, Jan. 25, p. 3; Jan. 29, p. 3. Memorandum of Chinese Foreign Ministry to Mac-Murray, , Jan. 16, FR, 1926, vol. 1, p. 1005.Google Scholar
32 Kellogg to MacMurry, Jan. 9, ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1002–03. The Chinese feared that German adherence would lead to German claims for restoration of privileges, Ch'en Pao, Jan. 21, p. 2. Later the Chinese government also protested the invitations to Bolivia, Chile, Persia, Peru, and Switzerland; Sze, to Kellogg, , Jan. 22, FR, 1926, vol. 1, p. 1007.Google ScholarWilloughby, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 24.Google Scholar
33 Kellogg, to MacMurray, , Jan. 9, FR, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 1002–03.Google Scholar
34 North China Herald (Shanghai), vol. 168, Jan. 9, p.47; Jan. 16, p. 90. Wang took office on Jan. II.
35 Betz, , op. cit., pp. 728–30Google Scholar; Mossdorf, op. cit.
36 Memorandum, Chinese Foreign Ministry to MacMurray, , Jan. 16, FR, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 1004–05.Google Scholar A similar memorandum was presented in Washington by Minister Sze, on Jan. 22; see also Kellogg to MacMurray, Jan. 20, and MacMurray to Kellogg, Jan. 22; ibid., pp. 1004–07.
37 Willoughby, , op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
38 Kellogg to MacMurray, Jan 20 and Feb. 4; FR, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 1005–06, 1012. The note also covered Chinese protest in the cases of several other countries (see note 32).
40 Correspondence between MacMurray and Kellogg, Jan. 23, 25, and 27; ibid., pp. 1008–10.
41 MacMurray to Kellogg, Feb. 3, and Johnson's memorandum, Feb. 6; ibid., pp. 1010, 1013.
42 Ch'en Tao, Feb. 3, p. 3. English version in Peking Leader, Feb. 3, p. 1. Above text from MacMurray toKellogg, Feb. 3; FR, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 1010–11. MacMurray had not observed any public comment before; MacMurray to Kellogg, Jan. 27; ibid., p. 1010. Nothing on the subject had appeared in the English language press prior to Feb. 3; but the Chinese point of view on the question and reports of the protests in Washington and Berlin had already appeared in the Ch'en Pao, Jan. 21, 25, and 29.
43 MacMurray, to Kellogg, , Feb. 3, FR, 1926, vol. I, p. 1011.Google Scholar
44 Kellogg to MacMurray, Feb. 4, and Johnson's memorandum, Feb. 6; ibid., pp. 1012–13. Sze was communicating with a friend in Peking, through whom he hoped to have more success with the foreign minister.
45 Memorandum of Johnson, Feb. 9, enclosing a memorandum of Chinese Foreign Ministry to Sze, Feb. 8; ibid., pp. 1015–17. China did not renew the request that the invitation to Germany be withdrawn. The State Department desired that China withdraw its memoranda of protest, but the efforts of Sze to effect this failed when the Chinese government, on Feb. 27, refused to do so. So on Mar. 1, the formal American reply was delivered. ibid., pp. 1017–22.
46 MacMurray to Kellogg, Feb. 25; ibid., pp. 1017–18.
48 It came as the result of Chinese misunderstanding was the reported answer to Ch'en-tsu, Wei, Ch'en Pao, Jan. 29, p. 3.Google Scholar
49 Quoted in Mossdorf, op. cit. Also see China Weekly Review (Shanghai), 82 (Oct. 23, 1937), p. 155.
50 Ch'en Pao, Feb. 25, p. 2; Peking, Leader, Feb. 27, p. 12.Google Scholar
51 Peking, Leader, March 2, p. 12Google Scholar; Frankfurter Zeitung, April 13. The denial did not appear in the Ch'en Pao.
52 Peking, Leader, March 10, p. 9.Google Scholar
53 Verhandlungen des Reichstags (Stenographische Berichte), vol. 389, pp. 6518–19. Speech of Deputy Münzenberg in which he read one of numerous letters and telegrams of protest from Chinese.
54 Otte, Fr., “Die chinesische tarifkonferenz,” Wirtschaftsdienst, 11 (March 19, 1926), 328–29Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit., p. 730Google Scholar; Ostasiatische Rundschau, vol. 8, no. 5 (March 16, 1927), 67–68; Ostasiatischer Verein, Jahresbericht 1926 (Hamburg, 1927), p. 10. The German cruiser “Hamburg,” on a visit in Far Eastern waters, should avoid China ports; Peking, Leader, March 17, 1926, p. 12Google Scholar; Ostas. Ver. JB 1926, p. 11.
55 Treaties and Agreements with and concerning China, 1919–19 9, pp. 232–33.
56 Betz, , op. cit., p. 731.Google Scholar
57 Text in New York Times, Oct. 30, 1937, p. 3.