The Problem of Manchurian Economic Development
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
The Problem of Manchurian Economic Development
Although the historical origin of the Manchuria problem varies depending on the point of view such as China, Japan, and the West, all agree that the Sino-Japanese, Russo-Japanese, and World Wars affected the origin and development of the problem. Japan had realized the problem was historical and also the obvious one, it was hoped that the rationality of the relationship between Japan and Manchuria would be demonstrated at the IPR conference,
Although Japan was related to Manchuria from ancient times, it was the Russo-Japanese War that made Japan and Manchuria to have a legitimate relationship. Obtaining the official approval of the Chinese government, Japan was able administrater and manage various facilities, which has led to the development of 만몽. Thus, ‘the relationship between Japan and Manchuria has occurred extremely legally and has been rightfully developed, and Japan’s open door and equal opportunity policy has brought benefits for both Japan and Manchuria, which has increased the interests of China’ The relationship between Japan and Manchuria does not cause any instability in the Far East and it does not hinder the convergence of the people and the nations around the Pacific Ocean
It is an investment of 20 billion yen over 30 years, and the result of the labor of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Koreans. Japan emphasized that Manchuria Railway system was the most effective system in the international transportation community of the world. Therefore, Japan has claimed that they are historically and geographically related to Manchuria. They also realized political and economic benefit, and cultural achievement, which are all tied with economical advantages. Japan also emphasized the importance of the railroad system for the transport system.
At the start of conference, the historical situation of Manchuria was explained purely. Article 3. Walter Young of the United States outlines the historical narrative of Manchuria and the phenomenon of Manchuria problem, and emphasized general interest in individual or nation’s stance. The first article was presented by 쉬수시, the second article by Matsuoka, and the fourth article is explained by 천보다.
Some of the IPR participants, such as Walter Young in the United States, have historically presented the phenomenon of Manchuria and urged individual and national interest. Some attendee raised questions about possible political issues rather than abstract definitions like R. Greene did. However, it was also concerned with the effect of the open door policy or the Manchuria problem on world peace. There were no specific knowledge to accurately grasp Manchu’s phenomenon and reality. It just generally laced relevant preliminary knowledge. That is why usually china and japan will debate about it while the other nations were spectators outside of the ring. There were printed materials briefing about the topic, but when the discussion topic was complex like Manchuria issue is, most of the thing cannot be covered in the printed material. Most of the conference attendees were not knowledgeable enough about the Manchuria topic.
Japan’s Matsuoka (right) views how economic development, population growth, and prosperity of Manchuria in the past 20 years should be credited to Japanese empire ruling. It is clear that the purpose and direction of Manchuria’s economic growth was clearly depended on national security. In addition, Japan maintained an effective peace, while expanded railroad installation. This brought Chinese immigrants and trade into Manchuria to develop the city rapidly. Also didn’t forget to mention about the rapid growth of Manchuria’s population was can be based on the fact that Manchuria has lots of new frontiers to be developed. Peculiar phenomenon that the Han Chinese from North China flooding into Manchuria is result of good security in Manchuria and the convenience it provided. Japan claimed indigenous natives from Shandong put fires their own home, curses the disease and plundering, and thinks that peaceful 만몽 is the new place of destiny and moved in.
Before opening of the international trading port Yingkou, Manchuria was scarce in terms of population and was not in contact with the modern world except for some fur trade with Siberia. Although the Beijing government did not encourage the development of Manchuria and prohibited immigration to Manchuria, it acknowledge that the expansion of the railway construction in efforts by Japan has started to change the Manchuria economy, due to increase in trade volume. Unlike the railroads by self greed minded Russia, Japan took control of 남만주 and linked to the world and brought prosperity to Manchuria. The Chinese population of Manchuria has also doubled over the past 20 years and the amount of foreign trade in Manchuria has increased
Japan also backed up their argument with the statistical evidence. If china was to be set at value of 100 when China’s first custom opened in 1907, in 1925 China was 226 while Manchuria is 534. In 1926 china is 261.1 while Manchuria is 618.8. In 1927 China 264.1 Manchuria 634.5. Year 1928 china 279.0, Manchuria 737.7. Japan view the results as achievement of Japan’s outstanding presence in Manchuria. Chinese stats were also showing the much rapid increase in foreign relations. From 1907 to 1927, china increased export from 69.9 to 198.4, right around three times. Manchuria’s export during the same time increased 27.1 to 328.3. That is 12times more, which is 4 times faster than china. Japan questioned how anyone could discard the fact that Japan played critically important role in Manchuria’s vast economical growth.
Although Japan agreed, just like Russia, they developed 남만주 for its own benefit, but it has generated considerable profits for others as well as a result. Other countries used port facilities and railways provided by Japan, enjoyed stability and prospered in the presence of the Japanese military. Japan also claimed that Japan had provided benefits by providing modern urban constructed buildings and hospital facilities. Japan questioned, If Japan had another hidden ambition, why would they encourage the Chinese to continue migrating in to Manchuria? In addition, Japan left acknowledgement about other nation’s investments directly or indirectly in Manchuria, which contributed to the development and prosperity.
China Shushu questioned if Japan really had any part in development of Manchuria. Claimed that China has over paid for the price and also sacrificed too much for it. More Important agenda in hand was to develop an effective general system for the future of China.
He refuted the attitude of Japanese in Manchuria. Japan’s actions in Manchuria were not helping China, but it is hampering China’s economic development. China opened Manchuria and built railways from Shandang in the north east and west to Hai Long, Yenji and Sinmin to Pakuman, and from the Pakumen, And from Taichung through Taun to Taoan, from Qiqihar, through Ning Jiang, to Aiphon. When China tried to build from Pungguitun to Pakumon, Japan decided to stop it because of the reason that it was 만철병행. and ordered to change the Chinese plan to the west using Jinzhou 헤이허 to get to 타오난 in the Northeast. However, Japan’s unilateral completion of Ji-hui Road expanded its power and interfered with China’s construction. . When China tries to develop the industry by borrowing foreign capital, Japan has destroyed it, and when Japan saw the plan of 만몽 4 and the inside of 니시하라, he asserted that Japan did not want China but destroyed it. As well as various rights from Russia and ap rok river development, coal mine in en tai , and poon soon. The 21 articles of rights, and stole the rights of Lusun, Dalian. The tragedy of railroads were not the source of aid to China but the destruction of China.
His view can be seen in various sources, including the natural geography of Manchuria, where peace was naturally created, not because of Japan’s power. Because the Japanese army was stationed in Manchuria there were war and Japan took in much profit from it. The rapid population growth of Manchuria was based on the economic fact that there were many new frontiers and backcountry sites in Manchuria, and refuted that it was not because Japan developed Manchuria and maintained security. The majority of the people who came to Manchuria from Manchuria to the war and had no home or land to cultivate, so it was a natural for the population to increase. There was no need to see that as unique phenomenon. In addition, the case of Japan’s failure to cooperate with China led to the case of the Pukumon Railway, which was the problem of the exclusive operation of the Manchurian Railway by Japan, and blamed Japan in particular example of stealing 21 rights.
Matsuoka, who was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time, stressed that he was the person who handled the case and that he was entitled to speak accurately about the matter. And refuted against China.
‘After the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Beijing made an agreement on the railway between China and Manchuria without Japan’s pressure. Agreement states that another rail way which will be in competition will not be built. ‘After the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Beijing made an agreement on the railway between China and Manchuria. Japan pledged not to cooperate with China, which is harming the profits of China with freedom of conscience. Under the Manchurian regime and under the Government of the People, the parties to the agreement entered into a loan agreement for the Pakumen Railway, which was a fierce competition, by enticing the British capitalists before the ink signed on this promise was still dry.
. It was the real purpose of Chinese politicians to tempt British capitalists to engage with Japan at the time. And Saying building rail road next to Manchurian rail way was illegal and pointed out unapproporiate actions of china. Also getting british investors involved is making japan look disgrace and also blamed british at fault.
In addition, Matsuoka has no special interest in the development of parallel rail, but the Chinese are angry at trying to eradicate the full-scale by laying parallel lines on both sides of the rail road. And mentioned Japan has paid a huge price and sacrifice from russia, not the one obtained for free from China.
China claims that it is indirectly benefiting from the full-scale rail, but not receiving the proper wages, saying that Japan does not agree with the facts, that the profit of China is being spent on Chinese wages. In addition, since China lacked the ability to preserve its territory, Japan claimed victory in the Russo-Japanese War by sacrificing 10 million soldiers and 2 billion yen. At the same time, China did not pay a penny of toward the war. Japan has not yet completed the principle of 2 billion yen, but still pays, and when it says that it will pay about 6 billion yen when it is all paid, Lee Hong-kang returned the manmong, which was sold to Russia back China at free of charge. And asked if there was a willingness to pay this 6 billion yen to Japan. was there willingness to compensate other sacrifies Japan has made for china?. China insists that Japan has already got enough of the sacrifices it has paid for in Manchuria, but actually it is not from China. Japan emphasized again that it invested more than 6 billion yen in capital and made hard efforts to turn manchuria to it’s state.. Thus, the Manchuria problem can not be solved without thinking from the Russo-Japanese War
Coleman, the United States representative, said that China’s accusation that the Japanese army politically violated territorial sovereignty in Manchuria and allowed foreign capital inflows to impede the development of railways and ports, . T. H. Yun emphasized that the presence of the Korean people who went to Manchuria as an ancestral land made a major contribution to the opening of Manchuria and the development of Manchuria, as the Jews went to Palestine. However, the Chinese claims they did not treat Chinese properly and their safety was threatened. For example, Chinese acknowledge the Korean’s help with farming of the rice, but still claims that Koreans made Manchuria issues more complicated.
China viewed Japan coming in not just for the economical benefits, but also for military expansion. Therefore, Japan will not withdraw their troops easily and that will result in natural political expansion, which will not easily be removed. However, as the significance of Japanese military and political facilities in Manchuria gradually diminished and the significance of economic facilities gradually expanded, Japan hoped to abolish political and military facilities,
China said “As Dongcheng railway case, Japan is trying to take control of the political armed force presence, the police, and taking over authorities in rail way. This clearly shows Japan’s motivation to take over and eventually gain all the economical benefits.” Japan, on the other hand, believed that it was difficult to find a compromise because it was fundamentally in conflict with China, which denied the legal and political interests of the 21 rights