On April 17, 1895, Japan and the Qing Empire signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki, ending the Sino-Japanese War which had been a disaster for the Qing from start to finish. The war began when the Qing court and the Japanese government vied for the role of “protector” of Korea, a longtime tributary state of the Qing but who in recent years had become a much valued prize for Japanese imperialist expansion. If you want to think of this as China and Japan playing the “No, she’s MY BFF” game so beloved by 12-year old girls the world over, go ahead, I won’t stop you.
The vaunted Beiyang Fleet and Beiyang Army, products of a decade-long effort in local military modernization by Li Hongzhang, failed to live up to their promise (Artillery shells were filled with sand, cannons exploded backwards…let’s just say the relationship between corruption and product quality isn’t exactly a new problem in China) and Japan routed Qing forces in a number of key land and naval battles before finally bottling up and destroying the remains of the Beiyang Fleet at the Battle of Weihaiwei.
The Qing sued for peace, and the Japanese presented a list of demands including cession of territory on the Liaodong Peninsula and the island of Taiwan, plus recognition of Korean “autonomy” and “independence”. In fact, the losses could have been worse. An attempted assassination attempt against Li Hongzhang, head of the negotiating team for the Qing, embarrassed the Japanese government and caused them to temper (somewhat) their original demands. The Japanese were further thwarted when shortly after signing of the treaty, Russia, France, and Germany forced Japan to cede control of the Liaodong Peninsula in exchange for an increase in indemnity to be paid by the Qing government.
An interesting account of the treaty and its aftermath, from the perspective of John Foster (1836-1917), a US diplomat who helped the Qing to draft the treaty and grandfather of John Foster Dulles, can be found in this New York Times article from July 9, 1895.
When asked about the prospects for a permanent peace between Japan and China, Foster replied:
“There is good reason to expect permament peace between the two empires. The terms demanded by Japan, may, under the circumstances, be regarded as reasonable, especially in view of the retrocession of the Liao Tung Peninsula. The treaty has been observed and carried by China with scrupulous good faith. Her conduct in this respect has has created a very favorable impression in Japan.”
The Sino-Japanese War and resulting Treaty is significant for a number of reasons. First, Japan’s resounding defeat of the Qing shocked many outside observers, who had perhaps underestimated the speed with which Japan was modernizing its military capabilties under the Meiji government.
The war also marked Japan’s first major foray into the imperialist scrum along China’s coast. Despite Foster’s assurances, the desire for more territory on the Asian mainland, particularly in Korea and Manchuria, would lead to ever greater Japanese demands over the next four decades, culminating in the full-scale invasion of China by Japan in the 1930s and 1940s.
Finally, there is the status of Taiwan. A prefecture of Fujian Province since 1683, the island had recently been granted status as its own province in 1887 only to be ceded to Japan eight years later. Taiwan would remain under Japanese administration for the next 50 years, until 1945 when it was restored to the “Republic of China.” And, as you might imagine, that gets us into a messy little gray area that’s probably best dealt with another day.
My old Qing history professor (Kent Guy at the University of Washington) ended his class with the Treaty of Shimonoseki (and a bit of the Boxer Rebellion), saying it basically sealed the deal for the Qing Dynasty. After that it there was no way to recover, where as before there might have been a fighting chance.
Foster may have been thinking of the Austro-Prussian War. A rising young power attacks a decaying empire (one ruled by fellow Germans), and resoundingly triumphs. Not so different from the (First) Sino-Japanese War, as long as you don’t look too closely.
And the Austrians got along fabulously with the Germans afterwards, didn’t they?
it was also a watershed in Japanese domestic and foreign policy. after the victory, swell of national pride and bullying by Western imperial powers, the political parties in the Diet became more supportive of the taxes necessary to support an expansionist military and less opposed to strong centralized governance. Some historians of Japanese legal history mark the Treaty as a turning point in the evolving Meiji constitutional system, one that disadvantaged whatever liberal potential it may have had.
Chris,
You had a good history class, I would love to take a class from Kent Guy. His book on the Siku Quanshu is one of my favorites on the 18th century.
Who am I to disagree with his assessment? The five year period (Sino-Japanese War/100 Days Debacle/Boxers) was pretty devastating.
Tom,
Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that Foster called that putt a little early…
g,
Good points all.
Yes, Kent Guy was probably one of the best professors I ever had, and the best on Chinese history. He’s a real expert and quite a nice guy to boot.
i find it fascinating how often these family traditions in american foreign policy turn up.
the other one that comes to mind is gen. norman schwarzkopf of gulf war fame, and his father herbert, who was involved with the coup that overthrew mossadegh and installed the shah in iran.
the 1890s definitely gutted the qing. amazing they lasted until 1911, really.
” Taiwan would remain under Japanese administration for the next 50 years, until 1945 when it was restored to the “Republic of China.” ”
Isn’t this slightly inaccurate? While the San Francisco Treaty nullified the concessions of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, this nullification would technically have returned Taiwan to the Qing Empire, which no longer existed in 1952. Japan’s refusal to specify to whom it was handing Taiwan’s sovereignty technically means that the island was not given to the Republic of China, under any name. In fact, for Japan, the omission of the name of Taiwan’s sovereign was intentional in order to avoid the impressions of taking sides in the Chinese Civil War.
The KMT’s was allowed to administer Taiwan in lieu of a final solution. Therefore, it is really only correct to say that Japan lost sovereignty of Taiwan following WWII, not that it restored Taiwan to the ROC, in quotes or not.