coloured by anti-Japanese feeling, and it is difficult to accept any of the reports on their face value; and this colouring of reports in the apparent interest of making trouble between the United States and Japan is a menace." An influential New York weekly shrewdly compared the Japanese policy in China with the Monroe Doctrine of the United States and said, "The Monroe Doctrine was adopted as a means of self-protection, and has never been made an excuse for aggrandizement or interference in the governmental policies of American Republics. The policy of Japan may be likened to that of Monroe Doctrine so far as it seeks to protect itself through checking European aggressions."

99 28

China waited and stood the pressure as long as she was able, and finally conceded the demands slightly modified, giving Japan the paramount sphere of influence in China. "She could not help herself. She had to give way. But to say that her giving way and Japan's paltry modifications of her demands have brought about a peaceful solution is to talk the sheerest drivel," said an English journal published in the Far East."

When the terms of settlement were fully

20 Outlook, 110: 4, May 5, 1915.

"Editorial in National Review (Shanghai), quoted in Review of Reviews, 52: 231, August, 1915.

known to the West, even the most conservative English writers who were in no position to criticize the British ally in the time of war, expressed their views in unmistakable terms. "Japan has violated, and is now violating, the terms of the Portsmouth Treaty and the AngloJapanese Alliance," said J. O. P. Bland. "She is taking possession of China's outlying dependencies and endeavouring to establish the beginnings of overlordship in China proper, simply because, for the moment, there is nothing to prevent her from so doing."" Yet the prominent New York weekly commented on the settlement of disputes between China and Japan as follows:

"Americans interested in the welfare of China and Japan will rejoice that, at a time when international differences have brought about half the world into war, these two Oriental countries have adjusted their difficulties on a basis of mutual compromise." "

These things are not said to cast any reflection on the New York weekly or on any other pro-Japanese journal in America; they are cited to illustrate the tremendous influence the Japanese exercise over publications in this country, through the agencies that have been mentioned.

"Nineteenth Century, 78: 1198-1212, November, 1915.

29

Outlook, 110: 121-123, May 19, 1915.

CONCLUSION

COMPARISON OF RUSSIAN AND JAPANESE DIPLOMACY

HE mainland of Asia has been, during the last fifty years, an international grab-bag. Each European nation has scrambled for its share in the sphere of influence and for commercial advantages. The two nations that have been most active in the struggle in eastern Asia are Russia and Japan. But Russia is no longer a menace to the peace of Asia. The Soviet Government may crumble to-morrow, but it is not likely that the people will restore their absolute monarchy. Although militaristic Russia no longer exists, the civilized world is very familiar with the tortuous intrigue and secret diplomacy of the former Russian Government. Therefore, by comparing the present-day Japanese diplomacy with that of Russia under the old régime, the reader will get a clearer understanding of the tactics that are being employed by the Asiatic Empire in her intercourse with other nations. We may profitably make, then, a brief comparison of the

diplomacies of these two Powers in the course of their expansion, territorial and commercial, in eastern Asia.

Russian history from the time of Peter the Great down to the abdication of Czar Nicholas II, March 15, 1917, has been a history of territorial aggrandizement and political exploitation. The diplomacy of such a nation would necessarily be stained by indelible records of deceit and treachery. Perhaps writers like Kipling are justified in designating Russia, until the opening of the European War, as a black sheep in the European family of nations, and as utterly unworthy of British respect and friendship.

Japanese diplomacy, on the other hand, is subtle and insidious. Its inconsistencies are so skillfully covered that an ordinary observer cannot notice them at all. The Japanese being the cleverest imitators in the world, spare no pains in putting on an appearance of honesty and frankness in their dealings with other peoples. In fact, they are honest when honesty would give them greater advantage than dishonesty. "In the Japanese philosophy of life," said Colgate Baker, who was born and brought up in Japan, “right and wrong are terms of mere expediency. It is right to be honest when honesty gives you an advantage. It is not wrong to be dishonest when you would lose by honesty.

There is no conception of right for the sake of right."

It is obvious that Japanese diplomacy is far superior to the crude and brutal Russian diplomacy, in so far as obtaining the goal of their respective national policies is concerned. Whatever is done by Russia is known and criticized by outsiders; but such is not the case in Japanese affairs. "From what I know of Japan, inside and outside," wrote Thomas F. Millard, "I am convinced that Western knowledge of darkest Russia is as the noonday sun to the moon compared to general Western understanding of internal forces which sway the policy of Nippon." *

2

During the past ten years of Japanese expansion, Japan committed national crimes not less horrible than those perpetrated by Russia in the worst period of her history. The military tyranny in Korea has been interpreted in the Western press as a firm and necessary measure. "After the Japanese occupation of Manchuria," wrote an American correspondent who personally investigated the situation, "began the state of affairs which, had it occurred in the Balkans or in Manchuria under Russian control, would quickly have resounded through the

1" Real Japanese Character," Independent, 56: 641-644, March 24, 1904.

2

Millard, "The Far Eastern Question," p. 185.