漢冶萍公司の日中合弁化と対華二一ヵ条要求
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
This article follows the development process of the problems surrounding the Sino-Japanese Hanyeping Iron and coal Company joint venture, in order to clarify the historical role of Group 3 in Japan's "Twenty-One Demands" issued to the Republic of China in January 1915. After China's Xinhai Revolution (1911), Hanyeping was nationalized by the government and designated as a public-private sector joint venture. The Japanese response to this move was split between opposition and conditional approval factions. While the Japanese Foreign Ministry was opposed from the beginning, the Yokohama Specie Bank switched its position from against to in favor, in order to protect its credit obligations. Furthermore, as the question of the Sino-Japanese joint venture demanded in 1915 developed, the Foreign Ministry and the Specie Bank were also divided over the means by which the new Hanyeping would be set up, showing that the attitude towards the venture in Japan was by no means uniform. The Specie Bank promised to lend fiscally ailing Hanyeping 15 million yen, a move which ensured Japanese financial control over the venture and also marked the point where Great Britain was forced to recognize Japan's monopolistic relationship with Hanyeping. At the outbreak of the First World War in July 1914 and the consequent temporary withdrawal of European presence, the Chinese government took the opportunity to recapture its interests, while the Japanese government sought to strengthen its. Therefore, the clash of interests that took place between the two countries resulted in Japan's issuance of the Twenty-One Demands, the third group of which concerned Hanyeping. While, the first demand of Group 3 can be praised for focusing on the formation of the joint venture as representing common aims and strengthening existing interests, the second demand, which stipulated that no mining venture could be attempted in China without Hanyeping's approval, strongly reflects the machinations of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Moreover, the ambiguous wording of these demands drew strong reaction from both Great Britain, which claimed that its interests in the Yangtze River Basin would be violated, and China, which complained about Japanese intervention in its internal affairs. There was also much concern over the possibility that Group 3 would change the whole landscape of Chinese-Japanese-British relations in the Yangtze Basin. Consequently, the Japanese Foreign Ministry was forced to rescind the second demand in order for the problems surrounding Group 3 to be settled, a fortunate outcome which dashed the ambitions of the Ministry regarding the Yangtze Basin.
- 2012-02-20
著者
関連論文
- 部会ニュース [日本史研究会]近現代史部会 日露戦後における対中借款政策の展開--漢冶萍公司を中心に[含 討論]
- 部会ニュース [日本史研究会]近現代史部会 明治後期における三井物産と大陸政策--山本条太郎を中心として[含 討論]
- 日露戦後における対中国借款政策の展開--漢冶萍公司を中心に
- 漢冶萍公司の日中合弁化と対華二一ヵ条要求
- 日露戦後における日本外交と清朝の鉄道政策
- 寺内内閣期の対中国借款政策と弊制改革(研究発表,近世・近現代史部会,日本史部会,第一一〇回史学会大会報告)
- 第一次世界大戦期における「日中経済提携」と漢冶萍公司 : 九州製鋼株式会社の設立をめぐって
- 辛亥革命一〇〇年と日本近代史研究の現状と課題 : 政治史・外交史を中心に (特集 辛亥革命一〇〇周年と東アジア近代史)
- 書評 熊本史雄著『大戦間期の対中国文化外交 : 外務省記録にみる政策決定過程』