MIA > Archive > Arthur Rosenberg
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 1 No. 16, 13 December 1921, pp. 130–131.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2019). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
According to the reports of the bourgeois press, everything is again in order in Washington. The differences between America and Japan over the domination of the Pacific Ocean have been forgotten. The Anglo-American economic antagonisms have been buried and France no longer airs its injuries. The imperialistic antagonisms have been liquidated in the new Four Power Alliance. The broth brewed in the Washington witches' cauldron tastes, however, rather thin and common and it will scarcely revive capitalism, groaning under its burdens.
What actually happened in Washington? Of course, the new Four-Power Alliance – England-America-Japan-France – has nothing in common with the old European Triple Entente. None of the actual differences between America and Japan and between England and France have been cleared away. Instead of that, the Four-Power idea is supposed to establish a sort of armistice between the capitalist powers struggling for supremacy, a certain balance of power of so fluctuating a nature, however, that the first strong storm will overturn it like a house of cards. The Washington Conference has been struggling for one month with two great problems – the future of China and the limitation of armaments. Before and during the conference it was continually emphasized that everything depends on China. An agreement among the interested powers with regard to the Far East had to be attained, the point of controversy had to be settled before disarmament could be seriously discussed. Mr. Hughes had attempted to put the cart before the horse. He began the conference with a coup de theatre the American disarmament proposal. The American Secretary of State caused a great sensation with his proposition that the three great sea-powers adopt the 5 : 5 : 3 fleet formula; but all this did not bring the conference any nearer to a solution of the Chinese problem.
A few days ago, a session was held of the sub-committee charged with the consideration of the Chinese question. A very interesting official communiqué of the proceedings has been issued. According to the communiqué the following took place.
On the order of business was the decision as to what should be done with the various regions which the Powers had ”leased ” from China. “Lease” was the euphonious expression for “rob”. When, during the last few decades, the English, the Japanese or anybody else annexed a portion of China, it was always solemnly stated that the region in question was only leased for a term of 99 years. The chief of the Chinese delegation, Mr. Wellington Koo, demanded that the Great Powers should return these “leaseholds” to their rightful owner. Mr. Balfour answered in the name of the English delegation. He declared that England had leased two regions in China: firstly, Wei-hai-wei, which England is gladly prepared to return to China (since it is of little value); and secondly, Kaulun. England can, unfortunately, not relinquish Kaulun, since it is indispensable for the strategic protection of the English commercial harbor, Hongkong. The conference would, he trusted, realize that the strategic protection of Hongkong is not merely of interest to England, but also to the world.
Then followed the Japanese, Mr. Hanihara.
“Japan is interested in two regions in China, which it has obtained on lease. One is Kiaou-Chow and Shantung, in which Japan is Germany’s successor. However, Japan has come to terms with China over Shantung; nothing need be said here concerning that. The second region that Japan has under lease is the Port Arthur district; but Japan obtained it from the Russians at the cost of so much blood and money that it really is unable to consider its return.”
This is the present situation of the Chinese question at Washington. No one is prepared to yield up anything which is dear to him. In the session of the China sub-committee the Japanese spoke only of Kiaou-Chow and Port Arthur. He could also have spoken of Hankow, the city in Southern China with a Japanese garrison, which is not “leased” to Japan. He should have mentioned Tientsin, in which Japanese troops are also quartered, all the so-called Treaty Ports, which have a Japanese police force, “and many other things”. Japan remained silent, and when it did speak, it refused to make any concessions.
With the China problem in such a pass, any talk of disarmament is pure bluff. As far as the disarmament program is concerned, Japan is to relinquish the modern super-dreadnought, Mutsu, according to the original American plan. After a long period of anxious expectation, Tokyo’s reply on Japan’s stand with regard to the fleet reduction has arrived. It is to the effect that of course Japan desires to disarm but requires as payment for its complaisance the retaining of the Mutsu. As a matter of course, this suggestion puts several holes in the celebrated 5 : 5 : 3 formula. But in Washington, they are satisfied to have secured Japan's acceptance, at least to that degree. And as for the submarines, one no longer even mentions them, for not only America and Japan, but also France has determined views of its own in that matter.
In this chaos what is the purpose of the Four-Power Alliance? The fundamental idea of the Four-Power Treaty is as follows:
The signatory powers guarantee to each other the continued possession of their islands in the Pacific Ocean, i.e., in the first place, America will no longer dispute Japan’s right of ownership of the strategically very important Caroline and Marianne groups. If, however, differences arise between any of the four lowers, the others are duty-bound to undertake the mediation of the dispute. According to that, in an eventual American-Japanese conflict, England’s and France’s arbitration would automatically come into play. If the plan is actually carried through, it means a considerable victory for British diplomacy. England can no longer maintain its alliance with Japan. Furthermore, England desires to postpone open war between America and Japan for as long as possible, for the victor in an American-Japanese duel would be so powerful that it would be able without serious effort to destroy Britain as well. Therefore England wants only to half separate from Japan. It wants to be the index-finger in the balance between American and Japanese capital. If the Four-Power Treaty is ratified by the governments in question, it means that, at the present moment, neither America nor Japan desires war, but is prepared to accept England's arbitration in their differences. But, and it must be continually emphasized, the Four-Power Agreement is in itself completely meaningless as an armistice as long as the signatory powers are not agreed at least in principle over the China Question.
This role of mediator means for England a difficult but important task. In order to be able to perform this work, upon which at the present depends the existence of the British Empire, England desires to have France as its second. France’s duty in the Four-Power Alliance is to hinder, together with England, the American-Japanese war and thus to conserve the present world balance of power as long as possible. It is apparent that England, to-day more than ever, requires the support of the French bourgeoisie. A short while ago, the London Times suggested to the French that they should not believe in the fiction of their isolation. It is precisely the Washington Conference which will weld the English and the French together closer than ever. The Times knows very well why it wrote that article. And in Germany it will soon be noticed how much England depends upon France.
What is the Washington Four-Power Alliance? It is no salvation for world-capital, merely at best a shaky foot-bridge, designed to lead over the marsh of the present world crisis, but which will soon break under the weight of its builders and precipitate them into the swamp below.
Last updated on 27 December 2018