Treaty Imperialism in China

UNEQUAL TREATIES However, Fairbank believes

that even though the western powers
According to John F. Fairbank, Britain had an edge over China militarily,
wanted the Treaty System partly “to they were not quite China’s equal in
foster the established interests” and diplomatic maneuvering, in
partly to express “Britain’s worldwide concluding post-war treaties, so much
commercial expansion.” He adds: so that the British “were less certain
“Specially, the British aim was to give how to capitalize” their victories, and
stability and opportunity to the “they found themselves in a
triangular trade between China, India, diplomatic contest, which was more
and the British Isles. This meant evenly balanced. Contrary to
safeguarding the China market for Fairbank’s observation, the Chinese
Indian opium exports and the Chinese government was utterly unprepared
supply of tea and silk for London.” He for the western treaty diplomatic
adds further that “the British treaty offensive. There was no foreign
makers” were meant to “find security ministry in Beijing, and foreign affairs
for trade in the rule of law,” offering a had always been entrusted to the
“charter of rights primarily for Viceroy of the 2 Guang provinces. One
merchants.” The Treaty System of the results of the 2nd settlement
conceived by J.K. Fairbank was a kind was the establishment of Zongli
of international alliance, or an yamen in the imperial court, which
international community, in which the was China’s first modern foreign
Chinese and foreign partners drew office.
mutual benefits from each other.
Characteristic of imperialist
Tan Chung says that the treaty diplomacy was the western
treaties combined the following powers’ preference to deal with
political devices to facilitate certain Chinese courtiers, who were
‘imperialist interests’ to fasten their prone to submission. This mode of
tentacles on the Chinese economy: (1) treaty diplomacy does not befit
Treaty diplomacy, (2) Treaty ports, (3) international dealings between equal
Tariff control, (4) Interference in sovereign countries. It amounted to
Chinese jurisprudence, and (5) interference by Britain in China’s
Interference in China’s foreign affairs. internal affairs. Naming specific
The most unequal aspect of the Chinese ports to be opened to British
treaties was the absence of shipping in Sino-British treaties on
reciprocity. There was only one-way the pretext that China should open to
traffic. The treaties were in no way the ‘free trade’ of Britain was already
binding prodigal China to an imperialist aggression. But this
international behavior. They rather was not all. Although the Chinese
wrought the tradition of direct government was adhering to both the
interference in a sovereign country’s letter and the spirit of the Treaty of
affairs. Nanking, Britain raised new problems
in 1845, by demanding permanent
Treaty Imperialism in China

leasehold of land in Shanghai, which an exploitation, warding off local

was never provided in the treaty. political interference. Second, they
provided bases of operation for
The imperialist powers did not international enterprises.
have to invoke arms to obtain vital
concessions. Pressure within the The treaty ports facilitated the
Treaty System was all, the imperialist establishment of commercial and
powers needed to achieve it. In 1854, financial networks, which linked
the 3 foreign ‘concessions’ formed a individual Chinese small-scale
Municipality and forced the Chinese producers and consumers with
government to grant new Land economic headquarters in the
Regulations, which virtually gave Atlantic. About tariff control, the
away Chinese sovereignty. The foreign traders complained that the
Regulations empowered the Chinese customs duties were too high
foreigners to administer Shanghai during the Canton Trade period.
proper (i.e. the foreign settlements) Hence, the proviso of limiting them to
by themselves with the power of 5% ad valorem in the treaties of the
taxation and right to maintain a police first settlement. Then efforts were
force. In 1869, Britain and other made to interfere in China’s internal
powers further forced the Chinese taxation structure, which resulted in
government to revise the Land the foreigners’ taking over the
Regulations to empower the maritime custom services of China.
foreigners to establish a Court of
Consuls in the foreign concessions. By Imperialist interference in
this act, the powers removed any China’s jurisprudence was affected
claim of Chinese jurisdiction over through the treaty provision of extra-
Shanghai. territorial rights to foreigners in
China. According to this provision,
The treaty ports were not only Chinese government officials can
mini-Empires of the foreigners within arrest unlawful Britons on Chinese
the Chinese Empire, but also outposts soil but should not subject them ‘to
of the imperialist powers in China. It any ill-usage, in excess of necessary
was through these outposts that the restraint’. Treaty of extra-territoriality
imperialist powers could exercise was not only exemption of foreign
remote control over Chinese affairs. offenders from lawful punishment of
Every treaty concluded between the land; it also constituted a foreign
Britain and China bore a central interference in China’s internal affairs
theme, i.e. to neutralize Chinese because of the invocation of
political interference in British trade extraterritorial rights to protect the
to the maximum possible extent. The ‘protégés’.
meaning of “free trade” lied in
freedom from Chinese political Foreigners could name
interference. The treaty ports acted naturalized persons and even Chinese
as protectors of the freedom of such as their protégés, who could then
enjoy the same judicial immunity as
Treaty Imperialism in China

the foreigners did. This protégé

clause of ‘the Treaty System gave
green signal to the missionaries to
meddle with legal disputes between
Christian converts and their non-
Christian compatriots’.

Treaty diplomacy, treaty ports,

treaty tariff, treaty extra-territoriality
and the treaty system’s overall
interference in China’s internal and
external affairs are the indisputable
evidence of the existence of a well-
conceived and comprehensive
infrastructure of governance which
the imperialist powers, particularly
Britain, had imposed on China.

Tan Chung says, “A qualitative

change first took place in 1821 with
British opium traders embarking upon
armed delivery of the drug under the
protection of the Union Jack, and with
British men of war standing by. So the
political process of British imperialism
had already been initiated 2 decades
before the outbreak of the Opium
War, symbolizing the beginning of
British opium imperialism.”