The Open Door Policy of the United States of America during Theodore Roosevelts - Research Paper Example

? The United s and China: Through the Eyes of the Open Door Policy during Theodore Roosevelt’s Era (YOUR (THE DATE) The Open Door Policy of the United States of America during Theodore Roosevelt’s regime was one that marked on of the foreign policies of the country towards its Far Eastern neighbors. Issued by the secretary of state John Hay in 1899, the principle of the Open Door Policy clearly stated that all countries should have equal access to China and its ports which are open to trade. During the conclusion of the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Russian intervention over Manchuria was greatly criticized by the American government as an act of treason against the Open Door Policy. To add to this, after the Russians were replaced by the Japanese at the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, the United States heavily demanded the concordance to the principles of the Open Door Policy upon Manchuria (Sugita, 3-20). The Open Door Policy had gone through a plentiful that explains many about the imposition of the American policy of free trade and open market towards the strong economies in Asia. However, this also reveals some problems that the policy’s principles and ideological stand had encountered during its time in China. Hence, this paper will argue that the Open Door Policy during Theodore Roosevelt’s regime had encountered conflicting disputes upon its implementation in China. It will first explain a brief background to the Open Door Policy’s birth. It will then narrate the developments that led to the fortification of the Open Door Policy before and during Roosevelt’s era. In relation to this, it will discuss the problems that the policy had encountered during its imposition upon the Chinese economy. The problems that this paper will dissect are those that deal with conflicts concerning other foreign powers and with internal issues such as the opposing ideologies between China and the United States present at the turn of the 20th century. The Birth of the Open Door Policy through Expansionism and Mahanism The United States government’s Open Door Policy was formulated based on the economic conquest of America and towards the proliferation and influence of its policies in Asia. In fact, the principles within the Open Door Policy were in accordance to the expansionist theory of the Americans. Their conquest of the Western Frontier urged them to expand their power towards the Eastern Frontier. The United States based their eastern expansion in the desire to bring education and religion to the greater Pacific. More importantly, the purpose of commerce was the primary mover of the expansionist theory. With trade in the minds of these expansionists, the Americans saw China as its potential “partner” in the Eastern Frontier (Israel, 7-9). James W. Bashford, a Chinese historian, stated that, “the Chinese themselves, in breaking away from an ancient civilization can readily be led to accept a western, Christian, Protestant civilization.” (Israel, 9). At this stage in history, the Americans saw the potential contained within the huge realm of the Chinese. It can be implied that the superior nature of the United States government had already recognized the advanced Chinese civilization. Hence, the justification for an expansion in the Eastern Frontier can be seen through the nation’s decisions. In this way, the Open Door Policy was a concrete manifestation of what the American wanted for their eastern conquest. An important catalyst to the implementation of the Open Door Policy in China can also be evidenced in one of the United States’ most useful expansionist doctrines at that time – the theory of Mahanism. Mahanism, formulated by Alfred Mahan, decreed that the might of a nation can be seen through its power in naval forces. With relations to the eastern expansionist desires of the United States, its government was aimed at the procedure of a gunboat diplomacy where China would be submitted under the might of America’s sea power (Israel, 6-7). The means that the United States government had chosen in order to penetrate the Chinese market was sensible because it was only through military strength that a nation could interfere with the affairs of the subdued. After all, the gunboat diplomacy had already worked with Japan; why not use the same process with China? In many ways that one may look at it, the United States’ Open Door Policy took its strength from the expansionist policy of the government and from the theory of Mahanism. Both served as the main excuse of the American intervention in the Chinese economy. Without both, the Open Door Policy would have stayed within the world of the Americas; it would have not reached the Asian region due to the absence of the mentioned factors. The Open Door Policy as the United States’ Sword and Shield The Open Door Policy was a resultant of several international events that shaped the history of western foreign policies in Asia. After the Spanish-American War, the United States saw another problem within its realm of economic interests in Asia. This problem was a concern about China and its relations to the intervention of other foreign powers upon its market zones. The demise of the Chinese against its foreign interventionists was brought about by the defeat it had experienced against the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War in1895. Thereafter, the territorial hold of the Chinese was made vulnerable to foreign powers such as Japan, Russia and other European countries interested to create beneficial relations with China. It was in this situation that the American government was compelled to act upon the dismemberment of China in terms of establishing economic footholds. The United States government did not allow itself to be left out in its quest to create a separate sphere of influence upon the Chinese soil. Thus in 1899, President McKinley’s secretary of state, John Hay, formulated the Open Door Note which transfixed itself into the Open Door Policy. The policy implied utter respect for the doctrine of free trade and the Chinese territory as well. Hay’s decree was directed towards Japan and other European powers who took a portion of China (Cashman). It is clear that from the implications of the actions of the United States government concerning foreign relations with China, the American desire to control the economic flow within Asia’s potential sources of profit was evident. Previous events were a testament to this. The United State’s control over the Philippines, as a result of the Spanish-American War, was an act of salvation in the very sense of the word. However, salvation in the American context was translated to be colonial as what had been seen in the policies of the United States towards its eventual colony. The United States’ subsequent move towards China was also seen as an act of salvation. Hay’s Open Door Policy was created in order to protect the Chinese interest. Yet, behind the principles of the policy was the American government’s desire to take control of the Chinese ports and pacify its foreign competitors. The policy was further strengthened by the Boxer Movement in 1900. The movement was established in order to spread amongst the Chinese the desire to drive out the foreigners. This they did through the captivity of several foreign diplomats within China. In retaliation, almost 20,000 French, British, German, Russian, Japanese and American soldiers made efforts to rescue their diplomats. The joint efforts of the foreign forces led to the downfall of the Boxer Rebellion. As a result, Hay produced the United States’ Second Open Door Note which further highlighted the principles of the Open Door Policy. The second decree emphasized on the solid adherence to respect the territorial status of China (Cashman). For the second time, the United States used their diplomatic power to influence the dictates of foreign powers in China through their powerful foreign policies. By using the advantage that the First Open Door Note had created, the Second Open Door Note had reiterated on a stronger controlled nature of intervention within the Chinese affairs. It can be deduced that the Open Door Policy functioned as the United States’ sword and shield. It functioned as a shield against the Chinese because the policy implemented principles that were favorable to the Chinese; hence the policy served as the Americans’ buffer against Chinese aggressions. At the same time, the Open Door Policy served as the United States’ sword because it gave them the advantage to control their foreign competitors and do as they will with the indirect power they had gained through the policy’s principles. As what was explained earlier, the controlling nature of the policy extended towards the Russo-Japanese War – a fight for influence over the Manchurian region. The Open Door Policy as Pacifier and as the Anti-thesis to Chinese Socialism The Open Door Policy during Theodore Roosevelt’s regime was known to be a method in order to pacify and modernize China. According to the American government, it was a way of capturing the Chinese people’s grievances so that they would be controlled during the early 20th century. “Our international policy is always to promote peace.”(Israel, 84). These were the words of William Howard Taft when he pertained to the Open Door Policy and its tight connections with the Chinese peace movement. Hay, the author of the mentioned policy, reiterated that Chinese uprising is an unfavorable movement by the locals who staunchly defended their own land (Israel, 85). The Americans gave the respect that the Chinese wanted through the policy. However, it was only through might that the United States had managed to enter into the intervening relationship they had built with China. In the context of the Open Door Policy as a peace-promoting government program, was war really necessary as pretext of pacification? In the desire of the United States for a conquest in the Eastern Frontier, war was an inevitable factor in order to subjugate or create a mutual but forced relationship with the weaker nation. From what was discussed earlier, Mahanism would not be used as means for the implementation of the Open Door Policy in China if war was not thought about by its American administrators. Hence, war was already an ever-present state of condition when it came to the imposition of foreign policies. A perfect example of this can be seen in the case of the Philippines. The Spanish-American War, although a staged skirmish between both nations, was a prerequisite for a transition of power. With the United States as the victor of the duel, the government had then begun to pacify the nation through its policies and decrees. The same process was applied in China. The United States had to show its might through a showcase of naval supremacy, especially during Hay’s Second Open Door Note (Cashman). It had to supplant not only the Chinese uprisings but also the intention of other foreign powers to emerge as the dominating force at the outcome of such domestic conflicts. Clearly, the Americans had to make war in order for pacification to make way. It had to show its terrible side first in order to caress the subjugated nation with its foreign policies and decrees. The Open Door Policy gave both reasons for war and pacification. Because the United States wanted to expand its political and, more importantly, its economic influence, the Open Door Policy worked its purpose by functioning as a buffer for the Chinese militants and, at the same time, promoting the notion of the free market. How did the Open Door Policy serve as the pacifying medium of the Chinese? The means for a harmonious relationship with the Chinese was achieved by a combination of American efforts in line with the principle of the Open Door Policy. As its goal for pacification, the United States had to give what the Chinese needed – peace, education and efficiency in governance (Israel, 85). Hence, the process of a western China had developed. A new tradition was formed, one that was patterned after the culture of the Americans. Social unrest was, indeed, controlled. The cooperation of the Chinese people was an important factor which gave the Americans the advantage for its economic dealings with China (Israel, 85). This was just an initial form of pacification. Pacifying the Chinese came into full circle when the United States had implemented economic decrees contained within the Open Door Policy. The American dollar diplomacy would then take its dominion over the market. Different laws and regulations which accommodated the doctrine of the free market were enforced in order to hastily show the mutual benefits of the American-Chinese trade (Israel, 84). It was in this sense that the Chinese people would be fully pacified because they saw that it was in the hands of the Americans that governance was renewed and their lives became modernized due to the improvements created within the country’s economic realm. However, the showcase of the free trade and the existence of a harmonious economic relationship were not enough to contain the sentiments of the Chinese. An eventual clash of economic principles and ideologies had emerged in China during the first decades of the 20th century – a clash between free trade capitalism brought by the Open Door Policy and socialism created by advocates of the Chinese national democracy. How different was capitalism from socialism and how did it affect the United States’ Open Door Policy? The basic foundation of the Chinese Socialist movement can be classified into two parts. The first is the basic combination of theory and practice in order to create a new thought. In particular, this is the fusion of a Marxist-Leninist theory and the infusion of practical theory or the execution of the mentioned Russian ideology (Schurmann, 29-30). This ideology was a concrete influence of the Russian intervention a few years before the Japanese took control after the Russo-Japanese War. Socialism envisions a China which can be put in the description of a reconstructed nation of order and progress. The movement elaborated this by presenting five general goals in attaining such. First, China was to have economic recovery and the consolidation of economic control by the state. China should have an organized and uniform type of taxation, an improved agriculture and a controlled industry under the state management (Walker, 4-5). This most crucial part of reconstruction would build a self-reliant China that is non-dependent on imperial powers. In this case, the intervention of the United States and its foreign policies were directly attacked. Second was the centralization of power in the hands of the socialist party. This would be accomplished by thorough dictatorship and a use of force through the police and the military (Walker, 6). Absolute control and discipline of constituents and of the people should be the obvious result of such vision. The third goal was a by-product of the second- the extermination of internal and external enemies. Through discipline, attempts of Chinese revolts would be silenced. External enemies such as the imperial powers would be eliminated by abolishing their rights over the Chinese affairs (Walker, 6). The fourth was gravely inclined with a dictatorial thought- the strengthening of military power (Walker, 6). This particular goal would give China the recognition of a world power in terms of arms, at par with its potential opponent – the United States. The final goal was the attainment of the social and economic reform. This should help China empower the peasantry, particularly the farmers and the workers, and thus, establish a nation that is not semi-colonial (Walker, 6) – one that was deemed an accusation against the United States government’s Open Door Policy. With the fulfillment of the mentioned, the socialist movement should be able to create a new China where the ideology of democratization dominates the will of its citizenry. The emergence of Chinese socialism is entirely different from the Open Door Policy’s doctrine of free trade capitalism. The United States’ free trade capitalism followed the laissez faire concept which upholds the “let alone policy” of the government. This means that there should be limited interference by the government when it comes to the business of the market. Free trade also decreed that it was normal for several nations to engage into economic competitions. In this case, the United States and Japan were two of the most prominent players in the Chinese market at the latter part of Roosevelt’s regime (Israel, 31-32). Total democratization of the economy and the re-organization of the society according to a socialist mode were not considered as principles of free trade capitalism. Capitalists were adherents of international relations through trade and commerce. Hence, interaction would be created through the presence f a common market place. The presence of the Open Door Policy was an assurance that the United States would stay at the top; that it would remain as the leading economic power over the Chinese market. It is clear that although the Open Door Policy served as an effective pacifier of China, conflicts had emerged in the subsequent years concerning the socialist movements which served as anti-thesis to the doctrine of free trade capitalism implemented upon the Chinese market. During the time of William Howard Taft, the successor of the American presidency after Roosevelt, the socialist movement would intensify under Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang of General Chiang Kai-shek. Socialism in China would then develop into communism propagated by Chairman Mao Zedong. These ideological movements would mark the demise of the Open Door Policy implemented by the United States on China during the late to the early years of the 19th and the 20th centuries respectively. Conclusion Indeed, the Open Door Policy during Theodore Roosevelt’s regime had encountered conflicting disputes upon its implementation in China. At the moment of its implementation through the American expansionist thought and the use of Mahanism, the policy was shaped by international and domestic events which established the United States as the dominant player over China’s market. These conflicting forces in terms of international and local levels were eventually subdued through might in warfare. Although the Open Door Policy was successful in its pacifying nature, the eventual emergence of the Chinese socialist movement revealed the opposing ideological beliefs of China and the United States. This movement presented itself as the sign for the downfall of American influence over China. Works Cited Cashman, Sean Dennis. America in the Gilded Age: From the Death of Lincoln to the Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: New York University Press, 1993. Print. Israel, Jerry. Progressivism and the Open Door: America and China, 1905-1921. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971. Print. Schurmann, Franz. Ideology and Organization in Communist China. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Print. Sugita, Yoneyuki, Trans-Pacific relations: America, Europe, and Asia in the Twentieth Century. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing, 2003. Print. Walker, Richard L. China Under Communism: First Five Years. New York: Yale University Press, 1955. Print. Read More