Suchergebnisse

The Hankow-Szechuan loan controversy, which has just been closed by the final ratification of the loan agreement, is typical of the numerous loan questions in China. In order to understand the meaning of the different phases of this controversy, two points must be borne in mind — that a foreign railway loan in China is entirely different from what it would be in the United States, and that the creditors in advancing their capital to China are induced by other than purely commercial motives. In the United States a railway loan is understood to be a commercial transaction between two parties, either private or public; in China it is regarded as a " treaty " between the Chinese Government and many other governments. No matter how a loan is made and who makes it, it invariably becomes mixed up with politics in the end. Loans are concluded only after much tedious diplomatic negotiations. Promises and " undertakings," which might have been made years before under exceptional circumstances, often play a more important part in determining the terms of the loan than the merits or demerits of the loan itself.

When the report of Chinese opposition against foreign loans reaches the western world, a certain class of people at once call such opposition the outcome of the historical anti-foreign feeling, oriental exclusiveness, self-conceit, and Boxerism. They assume that the Chinese have no grievance at all, and that these orientals "kick" simply because they are self-conceited heathens who do not know what is good for them. The more representative class, however, do not unreservedly subscribe to this opinion. They interpret the opposition as a manifestation of "Chinese nationalization." Thus the New York Tribune in an editorial calls the recent opposition to the Hankow-Szechuan loan as "a strikingly characteristic manifestation of the rampant spirit of 'China for the Chinese' which prevails in large parts of the country."There is much truth in this interpretation. But it points to only one of the many phases of the case. It is, therefore, inadequate to explain the whole situation and is misleading when taken as the premise for the solution of the problem. In order to understand fully and estimate aright these oppositions which are likely to exist in the future, we should examine closely the underlying causes from all points of view.