No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Strategic forgetting: Britain, China, and the South China Sea, 1894–1938
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2023
Abstract
This article clarifies a mythologized episode in the early development of the South China Sea disputes and shows how it was later ‘forgotten’ by British policymakers for strategic reasons. Using documents from the UK National Archives it confirms, for the first time, that Qing/Chinese officials did deny responsibility for the Paracel Islands in 1898/1899. It then shows how this correspondence was strategically ignored by British officials during the 1930s in the context of renewed disputes between China, France, and Japan over the sovereignty of the islands. It argues that during the 1930s, British officials sought to bolster the Chinese position in the South China Sea because of a concern that France would remain neutral in any forthcoming conflict. This resulted in Britain taking a view on the sovereignty disputes that was at odds with the evidence in its own archives but which provided useful political support for the Republic of China.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press.
References
1 Hayton, Bill, ‘The Modern Origins of China’s South China Sea Claims: Maps, Misunderstandings, and the Maritime Geobody’, Modern China, vol. 45, no. 2, 2019, pp. 127–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 For an early French example, see Lapique, P. A., A propos des Iles Paracels (Saigon: Les Editions des Extrême-Asie, 1929), p. .Google Scholar
3 Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ‘Position Paper on VN’s Sovereignty over Hoang Sa’, 7 September 2014. https://en.baochinhphu.vn/position-paper-on-vns-sovereignty-over-hoang-sa-11120420.htm, [accessed 26 January 2023].
4 Nguyen, Hong Thao, ‘Vietnam’s Position on the Sovereignty over the Paracels and the Spratlys: Its Maritime Claims’, Journal of East Asia International Law, vol. 5, no. 1, 2012, pp. 165–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Chemillier-Gendreau, Monique, Sovereignty Over the Paracel and Spratlys Islands (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Carty, Anthony, ‘British and French Archives Relating to Ownership of the Parcel Islands 1900–1975’, Jus Gentium: Journal of International Legal History, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, p. .Google Scholar
7 People’s Republic of China, White Paper: ‘China Adheres to the Position of Settling through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea’ (Beijing, July 2016).
8 Taussig, M., Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Details of the cargo from: Letter from Consul Brennan to Viceroy Tan, 5 April 1898, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, p. 171. Unless otherwise specified, all documents are available in the UK National Archives, Kew. Conversion to kilograms from Geoffrey C. Gunn, ‘Note on Weights and Currencies’, in World Trade Systems of the East and West, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
10 Letter from Consul Brennan to Viceroy Tan, 5 April 1898, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, pp. 171–174.
11 Hans, van der Ven, Breaking with the Past: The Maritime Customs Service and the Global Origins of Modernity in China (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.
12 For more on the history of Kiungchow/Qiongzhou as a treaty port, see Nield, Robert, ‘China’s Southernmost Treaty Port’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, vol. 52, 2012, pp. 63–76Google Scholar.
13 See, for example, Letter from Mr Schoenicke, Commissioner of Customs, to the Viceroy, enclosure No. 9 in Consul Mansfield’s No. 19 General Series of 20 April 1899, FO228/1321, pp. 188–190.
14 Letter from F. Schoenicke, Commissioner of Customs, to Viceroy Tan, June 1896, copy in Despatch from Mansfield, Consul in Canton, 20 April 1899, FO228/1321, pp. 188–190.
15 Letter from Consul Brennan to Viceroy Tan, 5 April 1898, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, pp. 171–174.
16 Letter from Viceroy Tan to Consul Brennan, 14 April 1898, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, pp. 175–176.
17 Letter from Consul Brennan to Viceroy Tan, 22 July 1898, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, pp. 175–176.
18 Petition from the China Traders’ Insurance Company Ltd and the Canton Insurance Office Ltd to Sir Claude Maxwell Macdonald, 4 April 1899, FO 228/1321 To and From Canton, pp. 191–204.
19 Letter from Zongli Yamen to Mr Bax-Ironside, Peking, 8 August 1899, FO 228/1299, pp. 88–91.
20 Coates, P. D., ‘Documents in Chinese from the Chinese Secretary’s Office, British Legation, Peking, 1861–1939’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, 1983, pp. 239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Po, Ronald C., ‘Mapping Maritime Power and Control: A Study of the Late Eighteenth Century “Qisheng yanhai tu” (A Coastal Map of the Seven Provinces)’, Late Imperial China, vol. 37, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 93–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 People’s Republic of China, White Paper; Gao, Zhiguo and Jia, Bing Bing, ‘The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 107, no. 1, January 2013, pp. 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 For the 1897 map, see Ping Yan and the Ancient Map Research Team, China in Ancient and Modern Maps (London: Sotheby’s Publications, 1998), p. 147. For the 1909 map, see Chen, S., Hammond, K., Gerritsen, A., Wu, S. and Zhang, J., ‘Local Gazetteers Research Tools: Overview and Research Application’, Journal of Chinese History, vol. 4, no. 2, 2020, p. CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Hayton, ‘Modern Origins’, p. 137.
25 Edward, J. M. Rhoads, China’s Republican Revolution: The Case of Kwangtung, 1895–1913 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. .Google Scholar
26 Hayton, ‘Modern Origins’, pp. 134–135.
27 Note dated 4 May 1909 from Mr Beauvais, Consulate of France in Canton, quoted in Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty, pp. 197–198.
28 Letter dated 4 May 1909 from Mr Beauvais, Consulate of France in Canton, quoted in Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty, pp. 200–203.
29 Gunn, Geoffrey C., ‘Anglo-French Rivalry over the Spratlys 1930–37’, in Fishing in Troubled Waters: Proceedings of an Academic Conference on Territorial Claims in the South China Sea, (eds) Hill, R. D., Owen, Norman G. and Roberts, E. V. (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1991), pp. 262–282Google Scholar.
30 Tønnesson, Stein, ‘The South China Sea in the Age of European Decline’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, 2006, pp. 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Marston, Geoffrey, ‘Abandonment of Territorial Claims: The Cases of Bouvet and Spratly Islands’, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 57, no. 1, 1986, pp. 344–346.Google Scholar
32 Tønnesson, ‘South China Sea’, p. 6.
33 UK Foreign Office, FO Telegram No. 196, 28 May 1931, FO 676/85 Sovereignty over the Paracel Islands 1931–1936.
34 Carty, ‘British and French Archives’, pp. 310–312, citing French archives, Series E, Carton S13, Dossier 9 rd/1, Japan China, volume 743, 1 January 1930–31 May 1932, pp. 238–239.
35 Benoit-Charles Bergeron, ‘Les Iles Paracels sont en grand-garde aux large des côtes d’Annam’, l’Opinion (Saigon), 11 April 1931. Transcript found in FO 676/98 Sovereignty over the Paracel Islands 1931.
36 British mission in Peking to HM Minister at Nanking, FO Telegram No. 186, 2 June 1931, FO 676/85.
37 Letter from Lord Tyrrell, British ambassador in Paris to Foreign Office, 8 July 1931, FO 676/85.
38 Lampson, British Legation, Peking, telegram to Foreign Office No. 245, 8 July 1931, FO 676/98.
39 Memorandum from V. W. Baddeley, Admiralty to the Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office, 15 August 1931, FO 676/85.
40 Best, Antony, ‘Constructing an Image: British Intelligence and Whitehall’s Perception of Japan, 1931–1939’, Intelligence and National Security, vol. 11, no. 3, 1996, p. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Ibid., p. 407.
42 McKercher, B. J. C., ‘National Security and Imperial Defence: British Grand Strategy and Appeasement, 1930–1939’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol. 19, no. 3, 2008, p. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Shay, Robert Paul Jr., British Rearmament in the Thirties: Politics and Profits (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), p. .Google Scholar
44 Quoted in Carty, ‘British and French Archives’, p. 317.
45 Republic of China Foreign Ministry, Wai Jiao Bu Gong Bao [Foreign Ministry Gazette], vol. 6, no. 3, July–Sept 1933, p. 209.
46 Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty, p. 109.
47 C. W. Orde, Secretary of State, Foreign Office to Lord Tyrrell, British Ambassador to Paris, 23 July 1932, FO 676/85.
48 S. H. Phillips, Admiralty to the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office, 26 September 1932, FO 676/85.
49 Kennedy, Greg, Anglo-American Strategic Relations and the Far East, 1933–1939 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), p. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Letter from Herbert Phillips, Consul-General in Canton to E. M. B. Ingram, HM Chargé d’Affaires, British Legation, Peking, 26 November 1932, FO 676/85.
51 Tønnesson, South China Sea, p. 6, fn. 13.
52 Hayton, ‘Modern Origins’, pp. 146–149; Chen Hsin-chih, ‘La Réponse Chinoise à l’Occupation Française des Îles Spratly en 1933’, Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains, no. 199, Juillet 2001, pp. 5–24.
53 Report on Crescent Group (Paracel Islands) by ‘Adventure’, 29 April 1935, ADM 116/3605.
54 Letter from N. B. Ronald, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Secretary of the Admiralty, F 8054/6636/10, 16 January 1937, ADM 116/3605.
55 ‘Il croit à ce sujet devoir rappeler au gouvernement britannique que qu’en 1898, à la suite des naufrages des navires Bellona et Umeji Maru dans ces parages… le consul étant intervenu auprès du gouvernement, il lui fut répondre que le question n’était pas du ressort de ce dernier, “les Paracels ne faisant pas partie du 0Céleste Empire”. Letter from French Ambassador to Foreign Office, 23 December 1936, ADM 116/3605.
56 Letter from N. B. Ronald, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Secretary of the Admiralty, F 8054/6636/10, 16 January 1937, ADM 116/3605.
57 Letter from S. H. Phillips, Admiralty to Under-Secretary of State, Foreign Office, M.01155/37, 17 February 1937, ADM 116/3605.
58 Letter from Admiral Phillips, Director of Plans, Admiralty, 23 February 1938, ADM 1/19951.
59 Laffey, John F., ‘French Far Eastern Policy in the 1930s’, Modem Asian Studies, vol. 23, no. 1, 1989, pp. 117–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 Letter from Foreign Office to M. Charbonnière, Ambassador of France, F 980/980/10, 10 March 1937, ADM 116/3605.
61 ‘Paracel Islands’ memorandum from A. T. Cox, archivist at the British Embassy in Peking, 13 May 1937, FO 676/271 French sovereignty over Paracel Islands.
62 Letter from Chancery Section, British Embassy, Peking to the Far Eastern Department, Foreign Office, 24 May 1937, FO 676/337.
63 Carty, ‘British and French Archives’, p. 346.
64 Taussig, Michael T., Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 Minute by Admiral Sir Tom Spencer Vaughan Phillips, Director of Plans, Admiralty, 19 July 1937, ADM 116/3605.
66 Tønnesson, ‘South China Sea’, pp. 11–12.
67 Letter from R. G. Howe, Foreign Office to R. I. Campbell, British Ambassador to Paris, F 7160/287/10, 11 July 1938, ADM 1/19951.
68 Bill Hayton, ‘When Good Lawyers Write Bad History: Unreliable Evidence and the South China Sea Territorial Dispute’, Ocean Development and International Law, vol. 48, no. 1, 2017, p. 182.
69 Carty, ‘British and French Archives’, pp. 342–344.