Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1925, Volume I

893.00/5945: Telegram

The Minister in China (Schurman) to the Secretary of State

Peking, January 12, 1925—4 p.m.
[Received January 13—6:15 p.m.]

15. My 1, January 2, 3 p.m., paragraphs 8 and 9.³⁹

1. According to telegraphic abstracts published January 8th in Peking newspapers the North China Daily News Shanghai conservative, richest and most influential foreign newspaper in China and best served with correspondence from missionaries and others throughout the provinces, published prominently January 7th an article declaring that a serious wave of antiforeign and anti-Christian feeling is sweeping across China. The writer attributes the causes to the failure of the present rulers who are attempting to deflect the popular wrath from themselves to the foreigners, also to the large growth of Christianity recently and the Bolshevist poison. In an editorial on the subject the editor says that many men not given to asserting express the opinion that an explosion is inevitable shortly and that the present propaganda is part of a widespread movement working for general repudiation of the treaties.

2. I telegraphed consul general, Shanghai, January 8th to convene group of representative missionaries and educators and get their opinion on these alarmist articles and also to consult heads of American concerns doing extensive business throughout China and telegraph me the result.

3. In reply received January 11th consul general states that none of our businessmen “have received any intimations from interior representatives of anti-Christian move” but that—

“Missionaries and educators have received reports of anti-Christian move from interior correspondents but the consensus of opinion at present is that the move is but slightly more extensive than in 1922, that it is as well organized but not so intelligently directed, that the move is a natural sequence of the Chinese educators’ challenge of mission education and that thus rivalry will likely continue over a long period. It has elements that may cause’ antiforeign propaganda but as yet it is not apparent. The agitation is purely anti-Christian education or antimission school to date.”

4. For explanation of the challenge of Chinese educators to mission schools see the report of the resolutions, especially resolution number 7, passed by the Tenth National Conference of Chinese Educational Association[s] held at Kaifeng, Honan, October 15th to 28th, 1924 as enclosed in despatch to the Department number 898 December 17th [15th] from the consul general at Hankow.⁴⁰

5. It may be questioned whether the association’s proposal to restrict and eventually to terminate the educational work conducted under the auspices of foreigners in China and to prevent the use of foreign schools or other educational agencies for the propagation of religion, is, as our Shanghai missionaries and educators declare, an agitation “purely anti-Christian.” Besides the religious mistakes, in [sic] which among a people so essentially nonreligious and tolerant as the Chinese may indeed be the weakest, I suspect the presence and operation of the following influences: (1) the ever-present Chinese aversion to foreigners and a new sense of the danger of foreign control of education, (2) the rising consciousness of nationality and the aspiration for a system of national education, (3) Bolshevik propaganda against other nations in China which has been especially successful in winning over and utilizing educators and students, and (4) a Bolshevik and Chinese drive against the so-called “Anglo-Saxon nations” who support most of the foreign missions and schools in China. France and Italy are scarcely mentioned in this connection and of course Japan not at all.

6. Japan is not averse to this agitation against foreign, that is, Christian nations in which she is naturally regarded as on the side of China. Foreign diplomats often speak of national value to America of her thousand missionaries and hundreds of schools and hospitals in China. In this respect America comes first, Great Britain poor second. In the present agitation Japan sees us attacked at our most vulnerable point as the friend and helper of China while she is entirely immune.

7. I do not associate Christian General Feng Yu-hsiang⁴¹ or even Sun Yat-sen⁴² with this anti-Christian agitation. Both, it is true, demand the revision of “unequal treaties” between the foreign nations and China and in this respect Chinese public opinion is unanimously behind them. They are exponents not of Bolshevism but radical nationalism though they may be willing to utilize the Bolshevists in their political maneuvres as, in Hunan, Feng’s lieutenant, Hu, is today using bandits in his army. Both Sun and Feng have taken pains to disassociate their political movement from Bolshevism; for the [latter] see my telegram of January 2, 3 p.m., number 1, paragraph 5. As to Sun whom a half dozen German, American and Chinese physicians in a public bulletin pronounce very sick man and for whom they prescribe complete rest, Eugene Chen came to me January 3rd and endeavored to explain away from his chief’s record in Canton all appearances of Bolshevism. Professed program of Sun and Feng in relation to foreign nations would seem to be not very different from that indicated in my Shanghai speech⁴³ as the policy of the United States. Undoubtedly these leaders have found that the Chinese people have been scared by the danger of Bolshevization and that foreign nations would not tamely submit to the repudiation of the treaties. I do not believe they would encourage or tolerate attacks on foreigners even if they succeeded in driving out Tuan⁴⁴ who has already given formal assurance of protection to foreigners.

8. If an attack were made on foreign nations over any issue arising out of the Christian activities of foreigners in China I do not share the opinion of the editor of the Peking & Tientsin Times of January 9th that Japan in the interest of civilization would rally to the support of the foreign nations. On the contrary I should expect to see her emerge, without perhaps taking any active part, as the friend, helper and protector of China against the western nations.

Schurman

39. Ante, p. 588.
40. Not printed.
41. Commander in chief of the People’s Army and director general of the Northwest Frontier Defence.
42. Leader of the Kuomintang Party.
43. At the Union Club of China, Dec. 17, 1924.
44. Tuan Chi-jui, Chief Executive of the Provisional Government of China.