China's Frontier Policy during the Republic of China

American capital has been expanding to China for many years. 1At the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 20th century, under the cover of "open door", the United States fought for the sovereignty of Northeast China (Manchuria-the author), which was one of the important stages of its expansion to China.

There have been a lot of works about the emergence and content of open door. Historians in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China (PRC) have revealed the imperialist nature of the open door. Expose it as a tool of American hegemony in China.

However, there is still a lack of sufficient explanation for1the position of the United States on the Manchuria issue at the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 20th century and its influence on America's general policy toward China. This situation is largely due to the fact that historians have not yet figured out the historical truth of the secret negotiations between Russia and the United States on Manchuria in the early twentieth century.

In the works of modern American bourgeois scholars, historians such as Daniel, Dulles, Dennis, C Pan, and griswold have devoted a lot of space to discussing1America's position on Manchuria at the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Many American writers do not deny the irrefutable fact that the United States pursued an imperialist foreign policy at the end of 19, but at the same time assert that this American policy has nothing to do with Manchuria. It seems that on the Manchuria issue, the United States has always insisted on "safeguarding" China's territorial integrity and making it "free from Russian aggression".

The American interpretation of Manchuria and other policies comes from the general concepts followed by American bourgeois historical works during this period. Griswold, a famous American bourgeois historian, has clearly put forward this concept. In the book "American Far East Policy", griswold believes that "the United States is trying to achieve what Europe achieved by force (in China-the leader) through appeasement". Moreover, the United States pursues economic goals rather than political goals. "When European powers fought for spheres of influence and territorial concessions in Chinese mainland, the United States refused to implement this policy ..."

American bourgeois historians try to prove that it seems that the actions taken by the United States against China are fundamentally different from those taken by other countries. In their view, the particularity of American policy lies in the so-called defense of territorial inviolability, safeguarding the integrity of China and striving for equal trade terms with China.

Most American bourgeois scholars, like griswold, insist that the United States voluntarily gives up its participation in dividing the sphere of influence in China. The United States has proposed an altruistic "open door" to counter the policy of establishing spheres of influence, which is beneficial to all countries, including China. Bourgeois historians try to prove their concept by quoting the American government's policy towards Manchuria. It seems that the American policy towards Manchuria first showed these "characteristics" they put forward. Dennis is an author who wrote a history of American diplomacy from the end of 19 to the beginning of the 20th century (1896-1906) based on a large number of diplomatic documents. He claimed that in the spring of 190 1, US Secretary of State John Hayward had prevented Russia from realizing its attempt to ensure its privileges in Manchuria. As long as you are familiar with the contents of the negotiations between John Hayward and Russian Ambassador to Washington Cassini during this period, the above views are groundless and clear at a glance. The United States privately proposed to recognize Russia's privileges in Manchuria under certain conditions, far exceeding John Hayward's crocodile tears in public.

American bourgeois historiography maintained its viewpoint on Manchuria in this period, with the intention of not only explaining that the major policies of the American government towards China were aboveboard, but also shifting all the responsibility for provoking the Russo-Japanese War to Russia and defending the American government's support for Japanese aggression 1904- 1905.

The main task of this paper is to clarify the U.S. policy toward northeast China at the end of1the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 20th century when the conflict in the Far East was fierce.

From the study of materials, it can be said with great certainty that the United States, like other imperialist countries, participated in the struggle of "sphere of influence" in China, which was related to the announcement of "open door". Some Soviet historians believe that the announcement of "open door" excludes the United States from participating in the struggle of "sphere of influence". This argument seems worth discussing. For example, Terentyev believed that American imperialism was faced with the following choices at the end of19th century: either participating in the division of China's "sphere of influence" (Terentyev believed that the political power of the United States was sufficient to participate in this struggle) or striving to achieve "equal opportunities", both of which would occupy a place. Terentyev said that the United States made a "choice" in favor of the "open door" policy, because only this policy "conforms to the general line of American imperialism". In the later published works of some Soviet historians, we can also find arguments such as that the US government would rather declare an "open door" than implement a policy of dividing spheres of influence in China.

However, our research on American Manchuria policy shows that during the period of 1894- 1895 after the Sino-Japanese War, the American government tried to fall northeast China into its sphere of influence, and even after announcing the "open door", it actually did not give up this plan.

1901-1902 The data of secret negotiations between Russia and the United States convincingly prove that American capital once fought tenaciously for the dominance of Manchuria. According to the data of secret negotiations, during the negotiations, the US Secretary of State insisted on giving the United States a particularly superior position in Manchuria, and opening Manchuria only for American capital to operate industry and free trade. In exchange for these privileges, the United States promised not to oppose any form of rule Russia intends to establish in Manchuria. These data show that the United States does not care about the territorial integrity of China or the "equal opportunities" of other countries.

Some documents related to the secret negotiations between Russia and the United States, such as various reports of the Russian ambassador to Washington at that time, have also been quoted by Soviet historians. However, because these materials are not related to the whole negotiation process, they cannot fully explain the real purpose and method of the American ruling group's policy toward Manchuria.

American bourgeois historians are very concerned about Manchuria, but they don't explain the negotiations between Secretary of State John Hayward and Russian ambassador, because they are based on the State Council's notes and memos, but these materials do not reflect that the United States is ready to reach an agreement with Russia. It is extremely unfavorable for the U.S. government to announce those oral suggestions made by John Hayward to the Russian ambassador, because these suggestions are quite different from the principles of China policy announced by the United States. In fact, these memos and other American documents can only be correctly understood by comparing them with the extremely secret talks. Cassini and his colleagues in the Russian embassy in Washington reported a lot of secret conversations to Russia.

Based on the analysis of the information we have about the United States and Russia, it is possible for us to make a more detailed analysis of some aspects of the far east policy of the United States that Soviet historians have not studied, such as the attitude of the United States to the 1900 Anglo-German Agreement, 1902+1October 30 British-Japanese Treaty and1902 Sino-Russian Agreement.

When investigating the American policy towards Manchuria, we try to make a detailed analysis of the Russian-American negotiations in the early 20th century, and explain the emergence and development of the trend that the United States resolved the Manchuria issue by concluding bilateral agreements with the Russian government, as well as the reasons why American diplomacy turned to the opposite approach.

The historical materials used in this book mainly come from the archives of the Russian Foreign Policy Archives of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Central Historical Archives of Leningrad. The materials studied are: reports of Russian diplomatic envoys in Washington and Beijing; Consular reports of the United States and Manchuria; Reports by agents of the Russian Ministry of Finance and officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry. American documents such as memos and notes attached to the report of the Russian Embassy in the United States are also important historical sources of this book.

In addition, the author also makes use of American diplomatic documents and British diplomatic documents published in the State Council 1898 to 1903. Letters from John Hayward and Roosevelt and other unpublished documents and materials have been quoted in the works of American and other foreign authors (Dennis, Watts, griswold, Campbell, etc.). ).

American newspapers and periodicals are not important materials for this book, because the main part of this book is to study the Russian-American negotiations, and because the negotiations are extremely secret, it is impossible to reflect them in the newspapers and periodicals at that time.

Historians from the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China (PRC) studied the American policy toward China at the end of 19 and the beginning of the 20th century, which made the author avoid reanalyzing many solved problems related to this topic, thus greatly lightening the author's research task.