Before Japan’s multiple invasions in the 1930s, it was British imperialism that exercised the most power over China, enforcing unequal trade treaties and occupying ports. Those interventions were part of the background to a weakened and divided Chinese state that led to 1911’s Revolution and the rise of the Koumintang of Sun Yat Sen. Grigori Voitinsky, first head of the Comintern’s Far Eastern Bureau and liaison to China central to the formation of the C.C.P., on the role of Britain, particularly the new ‘Labour’ government of Ramsey MacDonald.

‘British Imperialism in China’ by Grigori Voitinsky from Communist International. Vol. 2 No. 6. November, 1924.

IF in India, since the advent of the Labour Party to power, the nationalists had occasion to experience bitter disappointment of their hopes that the principal parties of the Second International, with MacDonald at their head, would redeem the pledges they had made to the oppressed peoples of the colonies in the course of the world war, we now find that in China, the Second International, as represented by the Labour Government, is beginning to reveal itself in an even worse light. British imperialism in India, a colony, is far different from what it is in China, a semi-colony. To begin with, in India, the British imperialists, having no rivals, are able to adapt their policies exclusively to the home interests of England, without having to correlate these policies with the world’s imperialist forces in general. Secondly, in India there is not even a relatively independent government, there are no individual war-lords or national militarists backing one or another of the imperialist powers and furthering the interests of one set of militarists to the detriment of another. Thirdly, India, in contradistinction to China, is not divided into separate groups of provinces which take no account whatever of the central power, where the governors carry out their own respective provincial policies. Fourthly, in India there is not an independence movement already in possession of a territorial base, as is the case of the Kuomingtang Party in South China, led by Sun-Yat-Sen.

These are the four fundamental conditions which distinguish India from China, and which do not permit the British Imperialists to apply Indian methods of subjugation to the people of China.

It is true that the British Ambassador and the less responsible representatives of British finance, frequently forget about the difference and try, as representatives of British imperialism, to intimidate the Chinese people, at least in the territory of the British sphere of influence, and to reduce it to the type of a colony. In this connection, British imperialism recently took the following course. It endeavoured to secure preponderant influence over the Central Chinese government, to subjugate to itself the fundamental military clique of China, the so-called Chili Party, at the same time waging the most vicious campaign against the national-revolutionary government of Dr. Sun-Yat-Sen in the South.

Of course, the imperialists of America, France and Japan are none the less more anxious than the British imperialists to acquire such political influence and to stem the tide of the national liberation movement in China. Nevertheless, Britain has certain advantages over all the other imperialists thanks to its more ancient relations with China, established in the hey-day of British capitalism, towards the middle of the last century. Furthermore, Britain was enabled by its vast experience in other colonies to create its colonising apparatus in China.

Indeed, one cannot help marvelling at the refined and, at the same time, comprehensive British apparatus in China for the moral and material subjugation of the Chinese masses. To begin with the large army of customs officials, salt tax collection inspectors, railway officials, chambers of commerce, having their agents in almost every corner of China, economic societies which penetrate into the innermost provinces of China, a large number of commercial travelers of private trading firms and enterprises, who at the same time serve as reporters to the Embassy and to the Chambers of Commerce. And further, there is the network of Reuter agencies which manufacture Chinese “authentic reports ” throughout the country in the interests of the imperialist gentry, and the even larger network of missionaries and pastors who infest the towns, villages and hamlets of China, preaching obedience to the Chinese and at the same time informing the imperialists of the least signs of fermentation within the country. All these put together constitute the entire apparatus of British imperialism in China.

Of all these “advantages” for the subjugation of the Chinese masses, the Labour Government of England is trying to avail itself not in a lesser, but in even a greater degree than its predecessors, Lloyd George and Curzon. This, apparently, constitutes an element of the famous principle of MacDonald: “We must not undermine the foundations of the Empire.”

China and the Washington Treaty.

It is a well-known fact that the Washington Treaty was the result of two fundamental causes: America’s desire after the world war to tear up the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, and to compel Japan to confine herself to those new spheres of influence in China which she captured during the world war. As to the question of the reduction of naval armaments, it also amounted after all to a weakening of Anglo-Japanese influence on the Pacific. It is also known that during the world war the small nations, colonies and semi-colonies were promised by the fighting groups of imperialists the right of self-determination, and a relaxation of the yoke of exploitation in regard to these nations and countries. It, therefore, happened that the Chinese question too was dealt with by the Washington Conference. It was raised on the initiative of America, which waged its campaign against England and Japan under the guise of the defence of Chinese interests. This hypocritical policy was a necessity to Wilson, whose peace-loving ideas were still fresh in the memories of the American people as well as of the small and oppressed nations.

Lloyd George, who was at that time negotiating an agreement with America on reparation questions in Europe, had consolidated all the debts of the Allies in America into one English debt, was compelled to accept America’s attitude in regard to the programme and place of meeting of the Washington Conference. Japan resisted for a time the very idea of convening the Washington Conference, knowing that the Conference was in reality directed against her, but was ultimately compelled to yield. France assumed a position of hostile neutrality towards Britain, while Italy supported America. China seriously counted on the aid of America, and even of England, against Japan, and it, therefore, was not satisfied with the promises of withdrawing the troops from the Shantung Province occupied by the Japanese, but insisted on the cancellation of the well-known 21 demands. Already then the Chinese people were bitterly disappointed in their hopes of obtaining the aid of American and British imperialism against Japan. Nevertheless, some small concessions were promised to China on its being invited to the Conference. These consisted in a promise to relax the customs policies, chiefly British, in the sense that China would obtain an increase of two and a half per cent. of the value of the total imports into the country, and that there would be a gradual abolition of the system of ex-territorial rights and consular courts. Two and a half years have already elapsed since the Washington Conference, and far from fulfilling these promises, imperialist oppression has grown even stronger in these regions.

It is true that as a result of the Washington Conference Japanese influence in China has been weakened, but at the same time the influence of America has been increased, and with the aid of the latter the British imperialists continued to bolster up their colonial policies in China. The notorious Chinese militarist, U-Pey-Fu, has become the tool not only of British, but also of American imperialism.

The Linchung incident of last year (when an armed group of Chinamen imprisoned several Englishmen and Americans and asked for ransom) served as a pretext for a joint and deliberate imperialist offensive against China. The Curzon satellites in China at the time behaved in a most arrogant fashion, demanding the dispatch of punitive expeditions into China and mocking the promises of the Washington Conference anent the abolition of extra-territorial rights in this “savage country.” Since that time, the derisive Anglo-Saxon attitude towards the Chinese people has grown tremendously, and is even developing under the MacDonald Government.

MacDonald Policy in China.

It happened that after the elections in England, when it was already clear that the Labour Party would take office, an event occurred in South China that was characteristic of a semi-colony–the leader of the national revolutionary movement dared to ask for the surplus of customs revenues left over after deduction pf the interests on the loan in favour of the imperialists. The demand made by Dr. Sun was not directed against the interests of the British imperialists, but merely against the Northern Chinese Government, backed by the British. Nevertheless it served as a sufficient cause for sending British and American cruisers with guns into the Canton waters. The mass meetings of protest held by the students and citizens of Canton district encouraged Sun to send a telegram to MacDonald, asking the latter to curb the imperialist ardour of the British. MacDonald did not even honour the Chinese national-revolutionary leader with a reply, and the British and American cruisers, no less than fifteen in number, compelled Sun to relinquish his rights.

Thus the foundations of the British Empire remained unshaken on the Pacific.

Perhaps MacDonald, on coming into power, could not quickly find his bearings in the colonial apparatus of his beloved Empire? Perhaps he was unaware of the aims of the young revolutionary government and with the history of its anti-militarist struggle in the last decade, and on this tical nature, the territorial base of the national-revolutionary party of China against the British militarists at Hong-Kong? Such an assumption would be absolutely untenable in view of the events which followed.

During the last six months, since the advent of the “Labour” Government to power, the British imperialist offensive has been strengthened throughout China, and particularly in the South.

In the last few years, particularly since the close of the world war, it was the policy of British imperialists in South China (where British imperialism wields exceptional influence, and where for many reasons of an historical and political nature, the territorial base of the national-revolutionary party of China—Kuomintang–had always been located) to coax the contending militarist groups in China into fighting with each other. In this way an atmosphere of instability was created in the Quantung Province which constitutes a menace to the Chinese trading class, and to the workers and peasants, and which opens the widest possibilities for British imperialists in Hong-Kong to capture all the channels of commerce, transportation, and export.

The MacDonald Government, far from rejecting the methods inherited from Lloyd George and Curzon, is now applying them with even greater shrewdness. The Party now in power in the Quantung Province, led by Dr. Sun-Yat­Sen, is known throughout China, as well as abroad, as the Party which fought against the despotic Manchu dynasty and which started the revolution in 1911, that has not yet been quite accomplished for a number of reasons This Party, at the present time, having established itself in China and relying upon the toiling elements of the urban and rural population of the Quantung Province consisting of thirty million inhabitants, wages a desperate fight against the militarists, who are subjecting the country to feudalism and imperialist bondage. The MacDonald Government, through its agent at Hong-Kong, is doing everything possible to overthrow the national-revolutionary government of Hong-Kong, and to compel the toiling masses of China once again to submit to the misrule of the militarists who bow to British imperialism. This is fully borne out by numerous facts that have been published in the English Press in China. A glance at any newspaper published by the Britishers in China is sufficient to unmask the attitude of the British Government towards the national-liberation movement of China. The revolutionary aspirations of the Chinese people for independence are being trifled with now to a greater extent than ever before; the Kuomingtang Party is being depicted as a criminal gang which leads the country to perdition. Even the very fact of the instability of the political situation, caused by the aggression of British imperialists, is being described as the inevitable consequence of the activity of the national-revolutionary party which entertains “fantastic” ideas about independence.

Apart from the furious agitation against the liberation movement in South China, the colonisers of the MacDonald Government are taking a direct part in the organisation of the reactionary forces against the Party of national liberation. Out of the British port of Hong-Kong and of the foreign settlement at Canton (Shamin), run the threads of the leadership of the fascist organisations, which was formed in Canton and in the whole of the Quantung Province under the title of “the merchants’ militia,” or as the people have christened it, “the paper tigers.” These fellows have already made themselves felt by killing several scores of workers in the May-Day demonstrations of this year, besides maltreating a number of other workers, and raiding some of the trade union premises. These fascist squads, numbering no less than fifteen thousand people in Canton and vicinity alone, constitute a big menace to the national-revolutionary government, hindering it in carrying out any laws that could in any way affect the material interest of the large trading bourgeoisie of the landowners. Behind these hirelings is the MacDonald Government. The British semi-official newspaper of Hong-Kong, on June 5th, 1924, openly hailed the formation of the newly-created fascist organisation, which was to establish order in the country.

But the imperialism of the MacDonald Government is not satisfied with economic pressure and violent agitation and organisation of fascists against the revolutionary government of South China. It inspires and supplies armaments to the reactionary military generals, like Chen-Chun-Min, to fight against Sun-Yat-Sen, and in this respect we find MacDonald guilty of the same bloody work against China as Lloyd George carried on against Soviet Russia in 1919 and 1920, when the British supported and equipped the Kolchaks, Denikins, and Wrangels against the workers and peasants of Russia.

In Central and Northern China, the policy of the MacDonald government is different in form from that in South China. Nevertheless it is the same in substance, the same imperialist line of economic pressure, violent agitation and constant threats and aggression towards the growing forces of the liberation movement in China.

During the comparatively short time of the existence of the MacDonald Government, there has been such a vast number of cases of violence perpetrated by British imperialism in Northern and Central China, that is quite easy to get a picture of the existence of a country dependent on the British Empire when one of the leaders of the Second International is at the head of the Empire. Let us take, for instance, the question of a surcharge of 2 ¼ per cent. in favour of the Chinese Government on the value of all the goods imported into China. It was already mentioned elsewhere in this article, this question was settled in the affirmative by the Washington Conference. Nevertheless now, after more than two years, when China asked for the convention of the Commission, which should at last carry out the decision, the British imperialists, with their American, French, and Japanese colleagues inaugurated a violent campaign of aggression against the Chinese people, accusing the latter of all imaginable crimes, alleged to have been committed against the imperialists. Since the British colonising apparatus is the strongest in China, the British took the initiative in this campaign.

Again, in reply to the demand of the Chinese public for the abolition of extra-territorial courts, the British imperialists replied in May of this year by demanding from the Chinese Government an extension of the extra-territorial rights. In May this year at Shanghai the British resorted to force in dispersing a mass meeting of Chinamen who protested against the proposed extension of extra-territoriality by removing the houses of a certain street bordering on the British settlement, thus artificially extending the territory of that settlement in Shanghai.

At the same time the whole of the English Press in Peking, Shanghai, Hong-Kong and other Chinese cities, continues to wage a campaign against the abolition of extra­territoriality, pleading the “savage nature” of the Chinese people and the corruptness of the Chinese intellectuals who are organising the masses against the imperialists.

Even if a Chinese soldier walks peacefully along the Peking Wall, in that section which adjoins the territory of the diplomatic corps, the semi-official English newspaper in China raises a hue and cry against the Chinese people for the alleged disrespect to the imperialists. If the soldier, punished by flogging for his innocent walk, wreaks his vengeance on some Europeans, the whole English press, led by the aforesaid semi-official newspaper, inaugurate a vicious campaign  against the students’ movement, the  workers’ movement, and the individual revolutionary leaders in China, demanding from the Chinese Government the punishment of the rebels, threatening otherwise to adopt repressive measures against China itself.

Indeed in May of this year, Wu-Pei-Fu, the war-lord backed by the British imperialists, as a result of a most vicious campaign by the English Press, consented to comply with the demands of these gentlemen, arresting seven labour and public leaders at Hankow and shooting them shortly afterwards at his headquarters at Lao-Yan. At Peking the representatives of the revolutionary students, who are identified with the national-liberation movement, are thrown into jail and threatened with the same fate as their comrades at Hankow. Anyone capable of viewing the re­ cent events in China more or less impartially, is bound to come to the conclusion that the hands of the murderers who shot the workers’ leaders and revolutionaries at Hankow this year, the same as in February last year, during the Pekin­Hankow strike, were directed by British imperialism: last year by the Curzon Government, this year by the Mac­ Donald Government. This bloody deed alone is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the imperialism of MacDonald is by no means inferior to the imperialism of Curzon, but rather exceeds it.

The imperialists in February last year, when shooting the Chinese workers, had at least the ostensible cause of a general strike of railwaymen: this year the satellites d MacDonald did not bother to look for ostensible reasons, shooting the workers merely to prevent any possible action by them against the imperialists.

The calendar of crimes of the MacDonald Government against the Chinese people could be extended. But it would not add anything new, besides confirming the already patent fact, that the so-called “Labour ” Government of Great Britain does not even think of pursuing its own opportunist policy on the colonial question–a milder regime for the colonies for their better exploitation–the policy advocated by the leaders of the Second International when they were in the opposition. On coming into power, they have entirely taken over the methods of the big financial bourgeoisie and are endeavoring to improve on them.

***

The above article was written at the end of last June. It was difficult to imagine that events in China would develop with such incredible rapidity. One could not believe that the Labour Government of Ramsay MacDonald would take the side of the counter-revolutionary Chinese merchant class in such an open manner, and would in agreement with American and French imperialism, initiate the first general attack on China from the South. As soon as the Labour Government came into power it became evident that MacDonald’s policy in China, India, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Persia would not in substance differ from the aggressive and imperialist policy of Lord Curzon. Yet, it was sufficient to imagine that the advocate of pacifism and democracy, the representative of an army of millions of workers would adopt so openly a policy calculated to defend the interests of finance capital and of the colonising aristocracy.

The recent events in China, India and Egypt–where MacDonald is even more ready than Curzon to put down the national-liberation movement by armed force and with the assistance of the navy and the entire technique of the devilish militarist apparatus, handed over to him by the previous imperialist governments of Great Britain must have had a truly overwhelming effect not only on British workers, but on the workers of the whole world.

MacDonald’s colonial policy is superior to that of Lord Curzon, for his methods of colonial administration and subjugatin of the workers of the East to the interests of British banks are manifold. As one of the most experienced opportunists who has made a fine art of the betrayal of the interests of the workers to the capitalists, MacDonald has transferred his experience on this field to the Eastern countries. He is developing and improving the colonising apparatus of British Imperialism. His method in India is twofold: on the one hand, he deteriorates the national-liberation movement of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie by the poison of pacifism and democracy, by making insignificant concessions to the growing national bourgeoisie of the country which has still influence over the masses. But on the other hand, he puts down with a strong hand all budding working class organisations, and applies mass terrorism to the peasant movement.     He employs the same tactics in Egypt, while throwing out sops to the representatives and leaders of the national movement, who are inclined to support the interests of the growing national bourgeoisie, he shoots on the vanguard of the Egyptian proletariat which is beginning to enter the political arena as an independent factor.

But the best example of this policy of MacDonald is to be found in China. Having grasped better than any other imperialist the significance of Southern China as a basis of the national-liberation movement not only in China, but also for all colonial peoples inhabiting the coasts and islands of the Pacific, MacDonald is the first among all imperialists to undertake an attack on Southern China with the object of destroying this base. MacDonald considers this attack to be so imperative for the interests of British imperialism that he cannot waste time in choosing his means for it. He sees the growing liberation movement in China with its 400,000,000 people, a movement greatly· stimulated by the Russo-Chinese agreement on the one hand, and by the growth of the Chinese Labour movement on the other hand, and he does not wait for better opportunities in the future, but puts naval forces at his disposal for the suppression of this movement.

In this case the imperialism of MacDonald’s Government co-ordinates its actions with those of American capitalism, which since the Washington Agreement, is waiting impatiently for the moment when to give a definite shape and form to its influence over China. Simultaneously with the note of the British Consul in Canton to the government of Sun-Yat-Sen, the American Ambassador sends a note to the Central Governor of China, threatening intervention in the event of an outbreak of civil war. The Americans are sure of the possibility of the latter eventuality, for they have been preparing for the last six months a collision between the military governors of the  provinces of Tcho-Tsian and Tsiansu. This collision must inevitably draw into the conflict the militarist clique of the Tchjili Party headed by Tzao-Kun and lj-Pei-Fu who have on the one hand the support of the Anglo-American capitalists, and on the other hand, the support of the adherents of the former Anhui (pro-Japanese) headed by Tuan-Tsi-Chui and Chang­ Tso-Ling. Thus the antagonism of the militarist forces within China is fostered and exploited by American capitalists with the assistance of the British, with the object of liquidating the former Japanese influence in Northem and Central China and paving the way for America.

The French imperialists, headed by the pacifist, Herriot, are alarmed by the extension of the imperialist activity of the British Government, and hasten to send men of war from Indo-China to Shanghai and Tian-Zin, in order to share the booty when the time for the partition of China will have come. The Japanese imperialists are joining their squadrons with the Anglo-American squadron, to show that in spite of American-Japanese antagonism in the Far East, it has, with respect to China the same intentions as the other imperialists. And at the head of these two imperialistic groups is the MacDonald Government, which has inherited the best colonising apparatus from its predecessors.

There can be no doubt whatever that the millions, which constitute the population of China, will learn more during a few weeks of the general imperialist attack about the question of the anti-imperialist movement than they could learn from years of newspaper, book, and oral propaganda at any other time. That this is so, is shown by the rapidity and energy with which anti-imperialist groups, societies and leagues are formed in China.

The imperialists expect to get for themselves from the present campaign the same results which they obtained after the suppression of the Boxer rising, but they forget to take into account the new historical epoch, which has accumulated too much inflammatory material for the imperialists to be able to start the conflagration without themselves perishing in it.

G.V.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/ci/new_series/v02-n06-1924-new-series-CI-grn-riaz.pdf