Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T09:35:13.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Russo-Japanese Agreement of 1907: Its Causes and the Progress of Negotiations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Masato Matsui
Masato Matsui
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Japan's victory in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 changed the balance of power in the Far East, and there was a shift from opposition between Japan and Russia to one between Japan and the United States. One result of the new tension between the United States and Japan was the conclusion of a Russo-Japanese Agreement on 30 July 1907. Financial and political difficulties within Russia and Japan also helped to bring about this Agreement.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 33 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This paper was written under the general guidance of Dr John Albert White, Professor of History at the University of Hawaii, and author of The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, published by the Princeton University Press in 1964.

1 Roosevelt to Taft (20 April 1905) quoted in Dennett, Tyler, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War (Gloucester, Mass., 1959), p. 178.Google Scholar As to Japan's account of this matter, see Pooley, A. M., ed., The Secret Memoirs of Count Tadasu Hayashi (New York, 1915), p. 253Google Scholar; White, John A., The Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (Princeton, 1964), pp. 157et passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Dennett, , op. cit., pp. 165–6.Google Scholar

3 Gaimusho, , Komura gaikoshi (Tokyo, 1966), p. 665.Google Scholar

4 Its contents were that ‘the Japanese Government would permit Harriman to form a syndicate and acquire a half interest in the South Manchurian Railway and its appurtenances. Joint mining rights were also provided for. A Japanese corporation was to be formed, subject to Japanese laws and to be operated under Japanese control’, Dennett, , op. cit., p. 312Google Scholar; Gaimusho, , ed., Nihon gaiko nempyo narabini shuyo monjo (hereafter cited as NGNSM) (Tokyo, 1965), I, p. 249 (2nd group).Google Scholar

5 Gaimusho, , Komura gaikoshi, p. 668.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 668.

7 There are two interpretations concerning the motive of Montgomery Roosevelt's proposal. One is that a group of financiers centered around J. P. Morgan, in competition with Harriman and Kuhn, Loeb & Company, sent Montgomery Roosevelt to Kaneko in an attempt to deal a blow at Harriman. Seizaburo, Shinobu, Kindai Nihon gaikoshi (Tokyo, 1942), p. 169.Google Scholar The other interpretation is that Montgomery Roosevelt's proposal was fiction authored by President Roosevelt in reaction both to the discontent of the Japanese with the results of the Portsmouth Peace Conference and the personal criticism he had received when Harriman's plan was revealed. Zenta, Hatano, ‘Nichi-Ro Senso go ni okeru kokusai kankei no doin’, Kokusai, NihonGakkai, Seiji, ed., Kokusai seji—Nihon gaikoshi kenkyu, Meiji jidai (10 1957), p. 171.Google Scholar

8 American exports to China increased as follows: In 1895, $3,603,000; 1896, $6,921,000; 1897, $11,921,000; 1898, $9,992,000; 1899, $14,493,000; 1900, $15,259,000. Dennett, Tyler, Americans in Eastern Asia (New York, 1922), p. 579.Google Scholar

9 Millard, Thomas F., America and the Far Eastern Question (New York, 1909), p. 272.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., pp. 188–273; Hornbeck, Stanley K., Contemporary Politics in the Far East (New York, 1919), pp. 257–81.Google Scholar

11 The letter dated 31 March 1906, from British Ambassador Sir Claude MacDonald to Ito Hirobumi, reveals Japanese intentions. Atsushi, Hiratsuka, ed., Ito Hirobumi hiroku (Tokyo, 1929), I, pp. 393–4Google Scholar; Yusuke, Tsurumi, ed., Goto Shimpei (Tokyo, 1937), II, p. 656.Google Scholar Memoranda of the same purport were sent to Saionji by Huntington Wilson, the American Chargé d'Affaires on 26 March and 2 April. Gaimusho, , ed., Nihon gaiko monjo (hereafter cited as NGM), v. 39, pt. I, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar Wilson to Saionji (26 March 1906); pp. 215–16. Wilson to Saionji (2 April 1906).

12 Masanori, Ito, ed., Kato Takaaki (Tokyo, 1929), I, p. 582Google Scholar; Pooley, , op. cit., p. 265.Google Scholar

13 NGNSM, I, pp. 260–9.

14 Ken, Kurihara, Tai Mammo seisakushi no ichimen (Tokyo, 1966), p. 63Google Scholar; Pooley, , op. cit., p. 266.Google Scholar

15 Hatano, , op. cit., p. 172.Google Scholar

16 NGM, v. 39, pt. 2, p. 398. Uchida to Hayashi (31 May 1906).

17 Gaimusho, , Komura gaikoshi, p. 758Google Scholar; Pooley, , op. cit., p. 246.Google Scholar

18 Naokichi, Tanaka, ‘Nichi-Ro Kyoshoron’, in Toshio, Ueda, ed., Kindai Nihon gaikoshi no kenkyu (Tokyo, 1956), p. 298.Google Scholar

19 NGM, v. 40 Pt. p. 97. Motono to Hayashi (19 January 1907).

20 Ibid., p. 99. Motono to Hayashi (6 February 1907).

21 In August 1905 when the Peace Conference between Russia and Japan was under way, Yamagata Aritomo had already advocated in his written opinion, Sengo keiei ikensho, his view on peace as a ‘long-term agreement of truce’ and the need for the expansion of military forces in preparation for Russia's retaliatory war. Azusa, Oyama, ed., Yamagata Aritomo ikensho (Tokyo, 1966), pp. 285–90 (1st group).Google Scholar

22 Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, Harold, eds., British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914 (London, 1929), IV, p. 255.Google Scholar

23 NGM, v. 40, pt. I, p. 97. Motono to Hayashi (19 January 1907).

24 Ibid., p. 98. Hayashi to Motono (2 February 1907).

25 ‘Russia and Japan’ by Dillon, in Contemporary Review of 02 1907, NGM, v. 40, pt. I, p. 100.Google Scholar

26 NGM, v. 38, pt. I, pp. 415–16. Ochiai to Komura (1 November 1905); v. 39, pt. I, p. 175. Motono to Hayashi (7 September 1906); v. 40, pt. I, p. 267. Hayashi to Hayashi, the Japanese Minister to China (24 January 1907).

27 NGM, v. 40 pt. I, pp. 98–100. Motono to Hayashi (6 February 1907).

28 Ichiro, Numata, Nichi-Ro gaikoshi (Tokyo, 1943), p. 184.Google Scholar

29 NGM, V. 40, pt. I, p. 107. Author feels that ‘springing for each party’ should be read as ‘accruing to each party’ and ‘each to the other’ as ‘to each other’.

30 Ibid., pp. 103–6. Motono to Hayashi (21 February 1907).

31 Ibid., pp. 111–12. Author feels that ‘springing for such other’ should be read as ‘accruing to each other’.

32 Ibid., p. 113. Komura to Hayashi (7 March 1907).

33 Ibid., p. 113. Komura to Hayashi (8 March 1907).

34 Ibid., pp. 120–1.

35 E. B. Price states that the biggest obstacle to the progress of negotiations was the question of demarcation of the spheres of influence between Russia and Japan in Manchuria. Price, Ernest Batson, The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907–1916 concerning Manchuria and Mongolia (Baltimore, 1933), p. 29.Google Scholar However, this is not correct, for Japan's proposal concerning the Manchurian question was accepted by Russia without hesitation.

36 NGM, v. 40, pt. I, p. 120. Motono to Hayashi (3 April 1907).

37 Ibid., p. 121. Motono to Hayashi (6 April 1907).

38 Ibid., p. 122. Komura to Hayashi (8 April 1907).

39 Ibid., p. 124. Ito to Hayashi (13 April 1907).

40 Ibid., pp. 126–7. Hayashi to Motono (18 April 1907). This is a translation of the instructions to Motono decided in the Cabinet meeting on 16 April 1907.

41 Ibid., pp. 128–9. Motono to Hayashi (19 April 1907).

42 Ibid., pp. 129–30. Hayashi to Motono (22 April 1907).

43 NGM, V. 40, pt. I, pp. 130–1. Motono to Hayashi (22 April 1907).

44 Ibid., p. 133. Hayashi to Motono (26 April 1907).

45 Ibid., pp. 133–4. Komura to Hayashi (27 April 1907).

46 Ibid., pp. 132–3. Ito to Hayashi (25 April 1907).

47 Ibid., pp. 134–5. Motono to Hayashi (1 May 1907).

48 Ibid., p. 135.

49 Ibid., pp. 534–5. Motono to Hayashi (1 May 1907).

50 Ibid., p. 135.

51 Ibid., p. 138. Hayashi to Motono (8 May 1970).

52 Ibid., pp. 139–42. Motono to Hayashi (11 May 1907).

53 Ibid., pp. 144–6. Hayashi to Motono (27 May 1907).

54 Ibid., pp. 150–1. Motono to Hayashi (1 June 1907).

55 NGM, V. 40, pt. 1, p. 143. Komura to Hayashi (15 May 1907).

56 Ibid., p. 143. Hayashi to Komura (17 May 1907).

57 Ibid., pp. 151–2. Hayashi to Ito (10 June 1907).

58 Ibid., pp. 553–4. Ito to Saionji (11 June 1907).

59 Ibid., pp. 154–5. Hayashi to Ito (14 June 1907).

60 Ibid., p. 155. Ito to Hayashi (15 June 1907); p. 557. Ito to Hayashi (19 June 1907).

61 Ibid., p. 158. Hayashi to Motono (20 June 1907).

62 Ibid., pp. 160–1. Motono to Hayashi (4 July 1907).

63 NGNSM, I, pp. 280–1; Price, op. cit., pp. 507–8.