Chapter 7 6. East and West

The immediate goal of the United States' Open Door Policy is to deter the advance of other powers along the frontiers of the Chinese Empire, which has a consumer population of 400 million.In connection with this, China must remain intact.The United States, or any country that supports the idea of ​​an open door, cares about the integrity of China, not out of philanthropic motives, but because it is vital to the full opening of the Chinese market. At this stage in the evolution of the European family that has gone through four hundred years, it is not so surprising to see a new balance of power emerging between East and West.The Russo-Japanese War not long ago brought awareness to this phenomenon, for the obvious reason that a European country was defeated by an Eastern country in that war.Such facts inevitably attract public attention, although most people cannot see beyond the surface to see the limiting factors, or even understand the facts that cause the above situation.No matter what conclusions one draws from the Russo-Japanese War, at least Japan's outstanding performance cannot but be recognized.

Other eastern countries applauded and agreed with Japan's victory.This identity exists more because these countries and Japan are in a position of defense against the dominant influence of the West than because of their mutual geographical and cultural kinship.Since the close practical contact between the West and the East (excluding the Turkish Empire) began more than 200 years ago, the situation between the two sides has been that the West can concentrate its power to a high degree both politically and militarily, thereby controlling not only the Eastern countries that lack organized power individually and cannot unite as a whole to support each other.Most East Indians were as loosely related to each other as the fiefs of a country in the high days of European feudalism.As for China, the vast majority of Chinese people have no national concept at all, and the military profession has a bad reputation. It is believed that joining the army will only teach people to be brave and ruthless.Fifty years ago Japan too was closed off, unable to share in the fruits of European progress at which it now has at its disposal.Not to mention the backward political systems and development levels of other eastern countries.

Against the above-mentioned background, although the Western countries have been fighting with each other, they have adopted the same behavior towards the Far Eastern countries. It is as if Germany is the leader, and Germany has an overwhelming advantage in continental Europe today.When Europe was a divided Christendom, the Turkish Empire seemed monolithic; and Islam generally retained its state form and recognized independence.But today Muslim countries are neither able to compete with the West in terms of political and military effectiveness, nor can they join forces to resist the latter. As a result, they are forced to sell their land and rights to the West again and again, and their independence follows. It survived in name only.

The situation described above is the result of centuries of evolution and cannot be reversed in a day, but Japan does show what can be achieved in a generation.Of course, compared with other eastern peoples, the small size of the country and the long-term isolation from the outside world made the Japanese a small and compact group.In the long period of solitude, the Japanese have formed a unique spiritual temperament, which has been fully displayed in the war a few years ago.This temperament, together with the small and concentrated population of Japan, the Japanese martial arts tradition, and the local obedience to central authority originated from the shogunate system, made it relatively easy for Japan to mobilize the energy of the whole body.Plus, good leadership and good timing are essential to a country's success, and Japan has been lucky in that regard.Historically, there have been many examples of good opportunities being squandered by lack of leadership. Today's Japan is a combination of both.

Although the transformation of the Orient is a long process, there is no doubt that a certain awareness is now more and more powerfully promoting the transformation of the Eastern countries that contain more than half of the human population.The various manifestations of this understanding are not yet clear, so that people tend to exaggerate or underestimate its significance.As far as the current situation is concerned, this recognition is more rooted in anxiety about Western control or interference than in the conscious and calm spirit of internal renewal that gives a country the capacity for self-management. ability.Of course, this somewhat less positive situation does not appear prominently in Japan.Dissatisfaction is not a constructive force in itself, and there is no individual or class in China or India that is clearly up to the difficult task of leadership.While Eastern countries other than Japan were deeply influenced by Japan's achievements, it is doubtful whether these countries would be willing to follow the Japanese path entirely, or whether they would feel that The road is more like it.The Koreans clearly find Japanese stuff intolerable, and the East Indians feel the same way about the British; some of our anti-imperialist friends tell us that the Filipinos don't like American rule either.

In India and the Philippines, the transition from thought to reality is often a slow process.For in both countries, dealing with Western ruling powers at work in the political and social spheres were various groups of native peoples far from homogeneous in race and creed.The contradictions between these groups eased dissatisfaction with Western rule; in addition, the local people also had a full understanding of the material progress brought about by foreign rule and the possible consequences of such rule disappearing.In this way, the masses adopt a tacit attitude towards foreign rule, and tolerate things that they may not like but which do not seem to be too harmful.Dissatisfaction with Western rule and the pursuit of independence mainly exist among well-educated people. They have a better understanding of Western systems and methods, but lack insight into history, so they cannot appreciate the pursuit and independence of Western people. Centuries of toil in applying these methods.For the time being, neither India nor the Philippines are likely to undergo major changes in their political systems unless such changes are approved by the metropolitan powers.However, Britain and the United States are indeed making some concessions to the locals at present.

The situation in China is different.Like other Eastern nations, China was overwhelmed by Japan's victory over a Western nation.China also has a long-standing perception of the West's material superiority, often after harsh practical experience.In a short period of time after Japan and Russia concluded the Portsmouth Peace Treaty, it seemed that the advanced elements of China set their sights on Japan, a country that is close to China and has a close relationship with China.If the Chinese can also possess the ingenuity shown by the Japanese in learning and applying the achievements of the West, they may be able to acquire the skills taught by the West more easily and naturally.The short distance between China and Japan and the low travel costs are also meaningful. Therefore, Chinese people went to Japan to study in large numbers, but the current wave has greatly ebbed.In fact, no matter how much China and Japan share a common language in resisting Western control, the geographical proximity and the vastly different national personalities will make it difficult for the two countries to cooperate politically, let alone form an alliance.Geographic proximity is a recognized source of international friction.Manchuria is not only the connection point between China, Japan and Russia, but also the place where the interests of the three parties intersect and collide.There is reason to believe that even if the three countries can maintain a state of peace, their mutual political antagonism and defensive psychology will continue to exist.For some time to come Manchuria will be to the Far East what Belgium was to Western Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Although China has suffered bad luck in the past years, and the Chinese have a general tendency to demean force, China still has the potential to make itself great one day, which is partly due to its vast land area and large population. .Only by effectively realizing these potentials can China become a powerful world power.Although China's hugeness undoubtedly prevents this goal from being realized quickly, the easing of changes is also a kind of protection for China.Despite the continuous erosion of China's territory, the Chinese government still retains its ruling authority.For much of China, orchestrated separatist campaigns and attempts to create or recognize spheres of influence do not exist.The Chinese are also racially identical, although they have regional boundaries with each other, and each speaks a dialect that others may not understand. In fact, these are also the inevitable conditions caused by the vast territory and underdeveloped transportation links.Besides, whoever has the best knowledge of the Chinese will find in a living Chinese an air of firmness which is of course very helpful to achievement.

This firmness has in the past been more rigid in the conservative sense, in an insurmountable preference for anything at home; a preference that can only lead to a sense of arrogance that is the worst enemy of progress.Recently, however, outside light has penetrated into China, and the process of self-knowledge by means of comparison with other cultures has begun and is bearing fruit.In connection with this, it is a matter of great significance and interest that the Chinese are building themselves, without foreign economic assistance, a 122-mile railway stretching northwest from Peking to Zhangjiakou.All the engineers were Chinese, and the leader, Zhan Tianyou, was a graduate of Yale University.China also intends to build an additional 150 miles of railroad, also without dependence on foreign aid.Of course, refusing foreign investment will hinder the speed of road construction and prolong the completion period, but the above facts show that China is determined to get rid of the intoxication of the past and look to the future in order to accumulate its own strength and transform ideals and hopes into actual development achievements .It is precisely because China is currently in a transitional phase that opening the door makes sense for it.In addition, as those who follow China closely tell us, there is a growing sense of nationhood in China that is not the same as racial consciousness;The generation of national consciousness is an essential first step for China to achieve national unity; and only when the Chinese people are united can China obtain its due position in the forest of the country and get rid of the pure and often innocent Pointless defensive posture.

No matter how long it takes for the Eastern countries to become countries in the modern sense, and whatever characteristics they display, they will inevitably go through a process like the countries of Europe and North America, and they must also transform themselves from a group with little internal cohesion to a The nation-state.However, size and population make it impossible for India and China to pass through this stage as quickly as Japan, and the political heritage of these two countries will not allow them to complete it as successfully as they did between 1783 and 1789. Political change was effected with the ease and ease of the thirteen North American colonies that had passed the constitutional process.But on the other hand, the means of communication imported from the West, which Western domination has brought to India many of these things, has also contributed to a tendency to strengthen the power of the state in a way that could not have been observed even in medieval Europe at a similar period. Speed ​​and certainty move forward.

As Eastern states integrated themselves, their political relations with Europe and the United States continued and developed, just as throughout the Middle Ages European states maintained their ties to what we know today as the Near East.The advance of the Arabs into the south of France, the Crusades, and the European expansion of the Ottoman Empire, whose vanguard reached Vienna and Malta respectively, are familiar concrete manifestations of this connection.At that time, Europe was a Christian world composed of many loose countries. The unified Islamic world at its peak could easily stab the sword to the heart of Europe; At this time, this danger also disappears.However, the Turkish Empire continued to be befriended by some Christian countries and played a balancing role in the long struggle between the Bourbons and Austria.It has been seen more than once that when France and Austria were at war, the Turkish attack on the other flank of the Austrian rear forced the latter to disperse its forces.Since then until now, the situation of the Turkish Empire has once again become a focus of European attention, and the conflict of interests of the various powers centered on the Levant has made Turkey increasingly a source of danger.During the Crimean War half a century ago, two Christian states united and formed an alliance with Turkey against another Christian state with which they had conflicting interests in Turkey.Just two years ago, divergence of interests created the same danger of war. For the United States, the above things are too remote to feel their impact on itself.However, as long as these things affect the balance in Europe, they will inevitably have relations with the United States by spreading their effects to some other parts of the world.In these areas, the United States is in close contact with the various powers that maintain the balance in Europe.The United States must not ignore an event that weakens a country with which the United States can count on alignment and benefits a country that is unlikely to align with it.During the last decade, developments in the East have greatly affected the balance of power in Europe.It is said that Germany, which also seems reasonable, has realized that since Russia's defeat by Japan, Europe has entered a new era.The defeat of Russia eased the pressure on Germany in one direction, so that she no longer had any serious qualms about the Franco-Russian alliance; coupled with the loyalty of Austria-Hungary to Germany, Germany was even more at ease.It is easy to see that the reduced burden on land would allow Germany to spend more money on the navy.This will obviously weaken the relative strength of the British navy, or force the UK to also increase naval expenditure substantially, and the increase in military expenditure is not a good thing for a country in itself. Britain's alliance with Japan to contain Russia may seem like a policy error.Of course, Russia's deep involvement in the Far East was good for Britain, as it would distract Russia from taking action against Constantinople, Suez, the Persian Gulf, and India.However, it would also be in Britain's interest if Russia could exert some kind of pressure on the present-day German Reich, as the Turks in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did on the then German regions.However, because of the catastrophic events in Manchuria and their aftermath, Russia may not be able to play this role for a generation.Thus, the actions of the British government contributed to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, which in turn brought about a substantial change in the balance of power in Europe itself against Britain.The British now have to do their best to make up for this. Of course, what we are talking about here is less a statement of reality than an estimation.But with Japan on the brink of financial depletion at the end of the Russo-Japanese War, it was indeed the Anglo-Japanese alliance that was decisive, based on what the British navy had been playing in world politics for the past two centuries. effect.Had the Russo-Japanese war turned out otherwise: the belligerents were closer to parity, both financially more vulnerable, and Russia's prestige less damaged, the war's impact on the diplomatic debates surrounding the Open Door would have been much smaller. Big difference.In another sense, the open door embodies the spirit of the balance of power. Both it and the balance of power aim to promote peace, but the latter implies equality of independent rights, while it implies equality of opportunity.In addition, like the balance of power, the maintenance of the open door also depends on the balance of power among countries.The countries here specifically refer to those countries that are interested in China's development and business opportunities in China, because the word "open door" refers to China. I do not yet know the origin of the term open door, but there is no doubt that the United States has played an active and prominent role in promoting the principle of the open door.The previous article quoted a passage from the German Delbrück, in which he expounded the attitude of countries including the United States towards the opening of the door, and insisted that German influence, German capital, German business, and German engineering industry and German ingenuity to compete with other nations on an equal footing.Naturally it is hoped that this reasonable object will be achieved peacefully; and this hope may be realized, if it is clear from the outset that the above-mentioned right can only be maintained by force if it is absolutely necessary.If everyone can understand this correctly, it will be less likely that there will be behaviors that ignore the wishes of other countries and the resulting quarrels. However, it should also always be borne in mind that countries generally have only their own interests in mind, and their views or perceptions often vary.Take the railway as an example.Building railroads is a common form of capital investment and job creation, and can steadily expand its influence along with the extension of the railway line; thus, opportunities for railroad construction should be distributed rationally in the spirit of the open door.But in a recent road-building arrangement, the US appears to have been sidelined, losing its claim to what the German chancellor called the turf in the sun.The U.S. government has solemnly stated its position on this.In the next generation's time, China will build a lot of railways, and the integrity of the Chinese Empire is even more crucial to the Open Door.If a foreign country occupies or manages a piece of Chinese land through a lease agreement, which has hitherto been common practice, the land is in danger of being annexed one day.Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered that fate a year ago, and North Korea looks doomed today.In addition, the above-mentioned commerce on the land owned by other countries in disguise may also be controlled by the customs of other countries, so the opening of the door becomes nonsense. Questions of this nature are directly related to the success or failure of the Open Door.To deal with them, the U.S. government has been working hard to reach an understanding with other countries.If the United States were to single-handedly maintain the Open Door, it would need to create a protectorate, which was fundamentally at odds with the egalitarian spirit embedded in the Open Door Policy.Problems with the open door are typically manifested in Manchuria, China.The situation in this region has always been uncertain, so it is also discussed from time to time.The presence of Japan and Russia in Manchuria begs the question of whether the actions of these two countries accommodate the legitimate rights of China itself and other equal nations concerned with opportunity in China.But there is no need to deny that, even if countries agree on the principle of open doors, they will inevitably compete with each other in acting on this principle.And trade competition naturally drives people to take advantage of any opportunity.Today, almost the entire world is using protectionism based on established controls more than competition for skill and power to gain commercial advantage.This kind of situation can be seen everywhere in the field of industry, finance and trade, and even the trust organizations in the United States have shown similar tendencies. The United States must deal with other countries on protectionism, and must realize that whether the latter can listen to the opinions of the United States, whether the social and political order advocated by the United States can be established and maintained, etc., all depend on its national strength.Changes in the relative power of relevant European countries have nothing to do with the United States. Any changes in this area will affect the interests of the United States, and will definitely affect the interests of the United States in the Pacific region and China.At present, Russia is in a weak state, Germany is struggling to build a strong navy, and the British navy is not as good as it was because the government was struggling to make ends meet. The United States must not turn a blind eye.The relative power of other countries has always had an importance to the United States that most Americans do not fully appreciate.In 1823, if the British navy was not so strong as that of the continental countries to prevent the latter from sending coalition forces to South America to suppress the independence movement of the Spanish colonies, the situation was very serious for the United States.In 1814, too, the situation in Europe led Britain to abandon without hesitation the territorial claims it had made against the United States as a result of the War of 1812.In addition, the reason why the United States can achieve independence is also because the strength of the British navy at that time has declined relative to the fleets of the allied France and Spain.At least that's what Washington thought, and what he knew at the time was that we had reached the end of the rope.In addition, if Britain and France could reach a consensus between 1861 and 1863, it would be very questionable whether the American North could win the Civil War. Changes in the balance of power, which has always been the key to European international politics, do not seem impossible to reduce European influence in Far East politics, unless the current struggle for naval superiority is suppressed or the overall situation is settled.It is absolutely true in principle and practice that a massing operation such as the present concentration of Britain's navy in home waters would require the withdrawal of detachments from distant areas, but would of course mean a more or less temporary loss of control over the withdrawn areas .However, as long as Germany and Britain are still at odds with each other like today, it is still reasonable and necessary for Britain to build up in the North Sea from a military point of view.Of course, if Britain wanted to muster forces elsewhere, this would not be possible, as she did not have enough ships to build up large squadrons. Exactly to what extent Europe's power mix will influence the international situation and make European states' power in the rest of the world backed by their naval power remains a difficult question to answer.However, as one aspect, it is conceivable that in the event of a stalemate between Britain and Germany in the North Sea, the task of the Allied Powers to control the Mediterranean may fall on France, which will naturally cause serious anxiety in Italy.An attitude towards the Monroe Doctrine nature of the western Mediterranean is said to be contained in some existing agreements between France, Great Britain and Spain.This attitude may tend to be strengthened like the Monroe Doctrine, and the countries concerned will also decide from it whether to adopt some arrangements for the Mediterranean coastal area that will change the state of naval power in the area.With the world's major naval powers now at the ready in the North Sea, a fleet capable of calling the shots in the Mediterranean is effectively a fast column, centrally positioned to facilitate sustained, specific action against other regions.There are many historical precedents for the above-mentioned division of labor among the navies of several countries. Although it inevitably shows the inherent weakness of alliances or joint operations of multiple countries, it is not unfeasible. These narratives are of course speculative, but they cannot fail to arouse the thinking of politicians in the competition between nations.Moreover, it is evident that, if Europe, as it were, still has an unrivaled naval power, this situation affects more directly than the present reality the sphere of interest of the two non-European naval powers, Japan and the United States.When Japan was first allied with Britain in 1902, the latter still held absolute naval superiority; the British navy could effectively respond to the Far East while maintaining its superiority in other areas.The two strong standards have been effectively implemented.Thus, in 1895, when several European powers intervened together to force Japan to make sacrifices, Britain could have resisted such an action, even though Japan's lack of a battleship force had caused it some misgivings.However, Britain later adopted the intervention method, which had a decisive impact on Japan's next war against Russia.It is worth asking whether such interventions are still possible if the current naval race continues to develop. The above examples also show that well-thought-out actions, once implemented, can have profound spiritual as well as material consequences.An attack that catches the enemy off guard produces a similar result.In 1895, France, Germany, and Russia forced Japan to return the Liaodong Peninsula, including Port Arthur, to China.Although Britain objected to this action and the territory returned by Japan was then leased to Russia by China, it was not fully prepared at the time and could not make up its mind; moreover, the situation was difficult to reverse, and Japan had no battleship power.But in 1904, the Anglo-Japanese alliance emerged, a positive step taken by Britain.At this time, Japan already had a fleet of battleships, the British Navy was still the first, and neither Germany nor France actively supported Russia.This is the actual policy of Germany, and France is unable to do what it wants.In the Russo-Japanese War, as it turned out, Japan was fighting in her own area of ​​the North Sea, and Britain was doing her part on the European side.This situation reflects the division of labor between the navies of different countries.Although the British Navy had no combat mission at the time, its actions were clearly military in nature and served as a deterrent.As mentioned earlier, in 1898, Britain stated that it would not only not support but also oppose the proposal to intervene in the Spanish-American War.If this is true, then the British Navy was also a deterrent force at that time. The above situation also shows that the possession and use of armed force does not necessarily mean war.This power can be, and often is, well used without provoking war; and the more skillfully it is used, the more peacefully it can be achieved.Still, being unarmed does not guarantee peace at all.The American Civil War is a good example.In modern times, no combatant in the general sense is less prepared for war than both sides in the Civil War, the longest war since Waterloo because of the preparations made by both sides. Lack makes them half-baked for a while.Ultimately, however, this situation will disappear; the North has a resource advantage, while the South, from a military point of view, can only rely on the impatience of its opponents to achieve separation. As mentioned above, France, as a powerful country on the European continent, can provide naval support to Britain.A disadvantage of this arrangement is that it would be an act of war if it were realized, and would lead to a land war; and no continental country can currently fight Germany alone on land.This is not to say that the French army is vulnerable, and France has been carefully fortifying its borders since 1870.In fact, the measures taken by France for offense and defense made France's armed forces, although still inferior to Germany's, still provide France with considerable security.This can not only make France's opponents think twice, but dare not take the risk of completely tearing up the face when it is not a last resort; it can also delay the outbreak of war to give France time to improve the quality of its armed forces, or hope that there will be enough to reverse the situation. the occurrence of the event. The French believe that Germany forced the French government to dismiss its foreign minister in 1905, and that France suffered this humiliation because France was not prepared for military affairs at all. The reasons need not be mentioned here.However, a year later, facing the same unbearable demands, France took an attitude of resistance and would not give in; and Germany had no choice but to tone down its tone. The considerable military preparations made by France at that time made it impossible to underestimate.Because of the secrecy of the archives, it is impossible to get a full picture of today's international events, but that is the general picture of the situation in Europe, and it is believed that Germany will continue to pursue its domineering diplomacy as long as it maintains its existing military superiority.This advantage, together with other political necessities, doomed Austria to tie itself to Germany, and their land alliance was at present formidable.As in the Anglo-Japanese alliance, in the German-Austrian alliance Austria's role was not essential.However, as long as it is known that it will inevitably move at critical moments, that is enough. The above-mentioned situation is naturally unfavorable to the Allied Powers, unless the cost of the war makes Germany have some scruples and dare not go its own way.Therefore, the Allies should increase their strength, but at present they are far from capable of both resisting aggressive German naval actions and dealing with them on land at the same time.It is one thing to be strong enough to deter an adversary from acting rashly, and quite another to be able to defeat a conflict when it arises.Moreover, in peacetime, no European naval country can support Britain's current position in the Mediterranean, and Britain can only support itself; once Austria has the financial resources to realize the heavy fleet it has dreamed of, Britain will feel even more difficult . The above views not only highlight the pivotal role of the British navy in world politics, but also show that there are currently only two naval states that are capable of helping Britain with naval power because they do not share land borders with Germany.They are Japan and the United States.Looking ahead, both countries need to consider whether it is in their interest for Britain's maritime supremacy to fall into German hands.Nor is such a change impossible.As things stand today, there is no real contact between the United States, Japan, and Germany except in the open sea; and Britain, with its maritime borders at every corner, is at ease in any area where it does not have naval superiority. Under attack, for example, Australia and other British territories in the east.Even the United States can constrain Britain by exerting influence over land-vulnerable Canada. One possibility in the future is that if the decline of the United Kingdom pushes the German Navy to the number one position in the world, and cooperates with the powerful German Army, the German Navy is fully capable of conducting ocean-going operations.England was able to do this, and did so, during the long period from the outbreak of the Seven Years' War in 1756 to the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, not because of the strength of the British navy itself, but because The status of an island nation enables the powerful British navy to play an effective role both at home and abroad.Today, Britain's financial difficulties, Russia's disorganized organization, and France's large population have all made Germany's future action capabilities virtually stronger.Although Britain is richer than Germany, the British who have been pampered for a long time are not as economically tolerant as the Germans.Moreover, the tradition of individual liberty prevented the British or Americans from being bound by the tight constraints on organization and individual action that made Germany a modern state. Today's German-British rivalry is a source of tension not only in European politics but also in world politics.That's not to say there aren't other thorny problems, but there are others.All of these issues can suddenly spark a fire.Where there is fire, there must be firewood. Hidden behind the confrontation between Britain and Germany are the differences of interests and suspicion between the two sides. They are based on industry and commerce that maintain the well-being of the two nations.The intense industrial and maritime rivalry between England and Germany has not been around since the days of Cromwell and then the Stuarts, when England wrested from the Netherlands the long-held commercial supremacy of the latter with its once unprovoked navy status.While today's realities are well known, few outsiders clearly appreciate the extent of German expansion and the historical context, past and future, that make it meaningful.Nor are many people able to recognize the more distant past, and to consider the strong emotions that accompanied the Germans' continuous industrial and commercial achievements. One can fully understand these sentiments without forgetting that developments in Germany in world politics are causing some uneasiness.In this regard, it is reasonable that Britain, France, and Russia were still in traditional confrontation with Britain not long ago and gradually formed the Allied Powers.A German chancellor denounced this as an attempt to encircle and isolate Germany, but the actions of the three countries were presumably intended to maintain the balance of power in Europe and the world, in response to Germany's apparent push to strengthen its maritime and commercial position. attempt.One should not invariably think that such ideas are not a valid reason to offend other countries at all, but that it should not be guarded against and checked.History has shown that any great ambition will inevitably contain aggressive factors, and only by responding forcefully can it not exceed the limit and the balance can be guaranteed.The maintenance of the balance of power has been an urgent concern of European politicians. Since the Civil War, the United States has unconsciously but inevitably become more and more integrated with Europe, so European affairs should also be of concern to Americans.當美國和西班牙進行戰爭時，在歐洲，門羅主義的支持者與反對者兼而有之，而德國據一般的報導應屬於後者，美德兩國在菲律賓問題上的不愉快無疑使這點更顯明晰。毫無疑問，如果當時的德國擁有它如今正在籌建的強大海軍，它的態度會更加強硬、地位會更加有利，而美國的支持者也會面對極為不同的形勢。今天，涉及西班牙的爭論已成為過去；不過即使在看問題最膚淺的人看來，很明顯，將來會有越來越多的問題既和美國、也和整個歐洲世界的利益息息相關。 讓我們根據德國的歷史來考察德國的現狀，因為如果不借助於適當的方式，我們不可能理解德國為什麼有今天的聲勢。為了最好地瞭解這點，不僅需要認清一個國家的利益，還需要體會到它的情感，並找到它可能的歷史根源，只有這樣，才能合理地作出評判。大眾的情感最強烈地左右著一個國家的行動；雖然物質利益是根本的動因，但它所激發的情感卻有著更大的能量。無論統治者意欲何為，大眾只是根據自己的是非判斷來行事。由於這個原因，一個處於與他國政府的爭執之中的政府都力求使自己的觀點看來合乎情理，以贏得民眾對自己的支持。 過去的歷史賦予了德國人一份情感，它和德國當前的利益需要融匯成了一股強大的推動力，使德意志帝國的臣民全心全意地支持他們的統治者的一般對外主張。和其他國家的情況一樣，德國也有著自身內部的爭執和利益分歧，它們將人們分為不同的派別，並影響到了他們對於某項國際爭端的看法。不過，比這些更重要的還是政治團結對德意志民族發揮的重大作用。最近的一篇法國報紙上的文章在以批評的口吻評價德國的外交時，不無道理地說道：在德國和在其他地方一樣也有著宗派主義，可是它受到了民族主義感情的抑制，這種感情在德國比在其他地方更加強烈。國家集體主義精神將六千萬德國人集聚在其政府的召喚之下，而法國比其他國家更應該當心不能將這種精種拋於腦後。這個告誡雖是單單針對著法國，但同樣適用於整個世界。 德國人還普遍地認為他們至今取得的成果能否得以保持很大程度上取決於他們在海洋上的地位。自一八七○年以來，德國的統一為德國的工業發展提供了必要的動力；而工業需要市場、商業和船運業，從而也使保護主義呼之欲出。德國在一八七九年採取了保護主義方針，這既是為了發展國內工業，也是為了保護德國農業，防止農村人口向工業部門的過量流動。德國的勞動力數量之所以能成倍上升以滿足工業發展的需要，和外流人口數量的減少有關：在一八八一年是二十二萬，如今只有兩萬了。外來移民的增加也是一個原因，一位德國撰稿人最近甚至說德國已成為一個移民國家了。 軍事上，與此相關聯的是德國海軍的變化。今天，受英國的一個類似組織的啟發而誕生的德國海軍聯盟已比前者擁有更多的成員。要知道，英國比其他國家對海洋有著更多的依賴，不僅為了自身的繁榮，更是為了單純的生存。德國海軍聯盟的引人注目的發展很大程度上是由於德國在有條不紊地積蓄能量，周詳地進行籌畫以使手段和目標相適應方面有著獨特的本領。這種本領體現在了德國的各個領域：軍事、教育、工業和商業。當然，不管這個聯盟在宣傳上是如何出色，假如大眾的所思所想和它的主張沒有什麼共鳴，它也不會在一些方面如願以償。正因為德國公眾對建立強大海軍有著贊成性情緒，德國海軍聯盟才可以盡其所能為這種情緒提供組織形式、注入活力，並使它能積極地產生效果，儘管巨大的海軍開支意味著債務和額外稅收的增加。所以，這種情緒是德國海軍聯盟取得成功的必要前提。該聯盟的領導人最近也說道：不是我們的規章而是蘊含於聯盟身上的那種精神造就了我們的成功。我們基於的這種精神反映了德國人的一個憧憬，這個對德國海軍的憧憬已體現在了我們的旗幟中。 德國海軍開支在一八七五年不到一千萬美元，如今則是一年一億美元，而且這種上升勢頭按計劃在未來十年中還將延續。應記住的是，這樣大的一筆開銷在德國比在美國能帶來更大的收益。這不是因為德國政府有什麼怪異之處；無論德國的議會在我們看來是如何之小，它還是體現了一個民族的意願。另外，再補充一句，海軍活動及海運業比任何其他形式的國家行為更能夠激發起一國的上下一心之感，因為它們在國家疆界之外進行，給人的印象是更多地代表著全體國民而非其中一小部分的利益。與此相聯繫，有意思的是，德國海軍聯盟的一百多萬成員中，有四分之一來自於地處內陸的薩克森王國。和國家的工業成就相比，一支巨大的商船隊或艦隊更是國家權力的象徵。 上面這句話尤其適用於德國。在這個國家，海軍還是一個嶄新的組織，而統一的實現，即從一個令人嚮往的理想化為活生生的現實，也是不久之前的事。就統一而言，今天的德國和一七八九年至一八一二年間的美國很相似。在一個洋溢著民族激情的時代，統一自然為人所擁護，尚處於獨立戰爭之中的北美殖民地上的情形就是如此。如今，德國的統一已被寫入了成文的德國憲法，成為了神聖不可侵犯的東西；而這部憲法經過一代人時間的考驗，業已為德國人所認同，將來的情形也不會有什麼例外。but.在依然存在著不盡一致的地方或集團利益的背景下，在德國還多少存在著獨立主義情緒這個德語詞在我們這兒可理解為強調各州的權利，它在一定程度上再現了美國獨立之初時，各自為政的幾塊殖民地之間的猜忌所導致的局面。推動美國憲法的起草與頒佈的只是各個殖民地的物質利益考慮，一八一二年的美英戰爭及伴此而來的對於一個共同的外部威脅的集中認識才使美國人形成了國家觀念，聯盟的理想才深入人心。對南北戰爭之前的動盪年代還有著記憶的美國人不會不知道聯盟這個簡單的詞所體現的情感是多麼熾熱；那時，無論是對奴隸制的憎惡還是利益的刺激都不能象國家團結這個觀念那樣不容置疑、有著永恆的意義。 能帶來明顯經濟利益而得以建立的德意志邦聯一個關稅同盟先於德意志政治同盟出現並促進了後者的產生。儘管如此，德意志統一的最終完成不能沒有超越物質利益的另一種推動力。這種力量可以在統一的德國對其當前國際地位以前的多個世紀的分裂使德意志一直處於虛弱狀態，承受著外來干涉和壓迫給自己帶來的屈辱的自豪中看到，並且集中地體現為德國的自我激勵精神。這種自我激勵在外人看來是一個國際舞臺上的新來者所具有的敏感，它實在是由於初登今日這樣的顯赫的地位，以至於不能理所當然地認為其他國家會給予這個地位應有的承認。美國人應認識到曾幾何時這種特點也顯現在他們自己身上，它發端於一種不安的感覺，即其他人不會象我們自己那樣子我們以充分的估價，從而也不會給我們以應有的重視。 因此，德國和美國的政策中的確包含著頗具進取意味的自我激勵成分。若干年之前，德國首相比洛曾說：我們不會容忍被剝奪與其他強國在權利上的平等，我們也不會允許我們與他國同樣享有的在世界上的發言權受到異議。我們已成為一個偉大的強國，我們希望在上帝的佑助下能永遠強大。作為美國對外政策的象徵的門羅主義在產生之初並不為他國所喜歡，今天的德國對外意圖也是如此，該意圖明顯地反映在了當前德國海軍的壯大上。一國完全出於防禦目的採取的行動有時在其他國家看來其勢也咄咄逼人。防止歐洲國家對美洲大陸的侵吞行為對一個美國人來說是出於再簡單不過的、合理的自我保護需要，可是在他國眼中或許就超出了防禦的範圍而有政治及軍事意義上的冒犯之嫌。門羅主義實踐的早期歷史的確呈現出這種局面；不過，今天各國已經習慣、容忍了美國的主張。在此必須指出，美國巨大的潛在實力使他國不能不對它謹慎有加。 但是，這種實力只有得到適當的調配才能充分有效地發揮作用。財力的大小是一個國家物力的具體表現；勿庸贅言，一個國家也可能象一個人那樣濫用其財富，因照顧不周而使其白白浪費或因使用不當而使其不能充分發揮效力。門羅主義和適用於遠東的門戶開放是當前美國對外政策的兩大原則。對於歐洲，美國由來已久的政策是消極而非積極的不干涉，它是和門羅主義相呼應的。可是，不插手歐洲國家間關係並不意味著我們應對影響到我們在整個世界上的利益及權力的歐洲均勢的變動漠不關心。這個道理眼下適用於德國和英國之間的競爭；這兩個國家間在經濟和海軍力量上的差距雖然仍相當地存在，但正日益縮小。 儘管美國和幾個歐洲國家之間可能有著多種多樣的外交議題，但是對於表現為三國同盟與三國協約之間的力量抗衡的歐洲體系，我們關心的只是這種不穩定的平衡關係的變化對我們的兩項主要對外方針的影響。就這種平衡關係眼下的狀況而言，門羅主義不象門戶開放原則那樣易遭受不利的影響未來的情形是否如此尚不能肯定，因為美洲的每一寸土地，如今都為一些主權國家所擁有，而它們的權利得到了國際法的認定，不可被隨意侵犯。中國自然同樣是一個主權國家，可是組織方面的無力使它治理不當，缺乏軍事威力。這招致了其他國家對中國的頻繁干涉，它的主權也因此不斷地遭到侵害，儘管就人口和資源而言，中國有著巨大的潛力。這種局面降低了中國所享有之權利的有效價值，它們在實質上已淪若無物，即便在字面上尚非如此。中國的地位究竟會如何既取決於它有多大的力量以保護自己的權利，也取決於其他國家歐洲國家、美國和日本之間關係在中國的利益交鋒。這種狀況也適用於去年革命之前的土耳其帝國。這場革命的影響還有待觀察，不過我們所知的兩個直接後果就是保加利亞的宣佈獨立及奧匈帝國對波士尼亞與黑塞哥維那的吞併。這些情形產生於當地的土耳其統治的不穩定。在土耳其境內，出人意外的事態一直層出不窮，正如保加利亞、波士尼亞和黑塞哥維那的狀況所表明的。克裡特島也是一個難題所在；在這裡，居民的天然而成的意願受到了幾個保護國的政策的抑制。克裡特的狀況由幾個強國共同保證是由土耳其當初的一意孤行所致，後者如今對於保加利亞的獨立和奧地利的吞併也只能予以默認；換言之，它迫於壓力不得不接受現狀。這些情形給國家間關係帶來了一種不安全感，而且它可能突如其來地變得十分強烈。 和門羅主義一樣，門戶開放原則目前還停留在美國國家政策的地步，未成為國際法的一部分。當然它可以被寫入某些國家之間的協定，並在協定的有效期內對有關國家有約束力，不過它能否得到實際的遵循還取決於國家間的力量對比。沒有什麼既定的東西能要求一個不同意門戶開放的國家也服從於這個原則，相反它盡可以置之不顧，除非迫於壓力不得不遵從之。和美國的其他政策尤其是門羅主義相似，門戶開放原則也是形勢的必然產物；形勢已經發展到了一個轉捩點，一個瓜熟蒂落之時。這兩項政策的提出表明，若干長期不受阻礙的過程已發展到了這樣一個階段：需要對它們說，只應走這麼遠，不能再遠了。門羅主義一直對歐洲國家在美洲的殖民活動作此告誡，直到後者不再對其提出異議為止。門戶開放則對更遠地區的擴張活動作類似的警示。這種擴張以政治或軍事干涉為手段，借助於吞併或以實力為後盾的影響這簡而言之也是對領土的實質性侵佔，不管偽裝得如何巧妙，以謀求對東方市場廣義上包括所有的金融和商業機會的外來控制。 借助吞併或建立勢力範圍以獲取地盤從而使一個國家的市場為外來者所把握的狀況已沿續了三個世紀。今天的英屬印度、荷蘭和法國在遠東的大片領地、朝鮮、滿洲和菲律賓都呈現這般情形。昔日處於歐洲統治之下的美洲大陸與它們也並無二致。美國的門戶開放政策的眼前目標就是阻遏其他強國沿著有四億消費人口的中華帝國的邊境地帶發起的推進。與此相聯繫，中國必須保持完整。美國或任何支持門戶開放主張的國家都關心中國的完整，這不是出於慈善動機，而是因為它對於中國市場的完全開放至關重要，這個市場只能為對所有外國一視同仁的中國人自己的政策所規範。即使中國在無助的情況下無力維護自己的統一，至少中國的完整作為一個原則也會隨美國關於中國市場上的平等權利的聲明順應而生。門戶開放方針的執行究竟會在多大程度上促使有關國家採取重大行動以支持中國的完整仍然有待觀察。不過，只有在某些國家以據有的地盤為依託，借助於優勢力量或陰謀詭計，無視其競爭對手，以謀取在華主宰地位，從而破壞了門戶開放必需的各國間平衡的情形下，才有必要採取公開行動。有了平衡，局勢才能保持平靜。門戶開放主張原則上已為西方國家所接受才不會成為一個孤零零的、與他國毫不相干的東西，而會成為一種影響不管其程度如何不易為人所察有關國家關於東西方間接觸的一般政策的積極的、條理清晰的認識。 門戶開放是新出現的一項國家政策，它旨在人為地維護各國間的自由競爭或商業機會的均等，在有關地區防止今天的多數國家在其所控制的疆土之內為它們自身的工業謀取好處的現象。在當今的太平洋地區，門戶開放是最引人注目的政策，且發揮著重要作用。這個政策的目標在本質上是商業性的，因為當今時代歸根結底是一個商業性的時代。不過，從決定著進步的特徵及程度的那些力量之間的相互作用來看，工業和商業能否順利、和平地發展還是取決於國家間的實力對比。經濟狀況的好壞左右著戰爭的勝負，而對戰爭做好準備又會使經濟運行過程免受外來之擾。海軍的保護確保了英國的平安無事，從而鑄就了英國經濟實力的超群地位。類似的和平局面也體現在美國身上，它遠離歐洲的你爭我奪，何況歐洲國家的行動還受制於其間的均勢狀況的變動。因此，英國和美國這兩個英語國家如今都成為了世界上最富之國。所以，要使門戶開放發揮有益作用，作用於太平洋地區尤其是西太平洋地區的各種力量彼此間必須達成平衡，以便它能夠穩妥地得以貫徹，免受諸多干擾。 接下來再考察一下太平洋地區的力量平衡它和門戶開放的推行息息相關，看來是令人感興趣的。對美國來說尤是如此，作為一個地理上的太平洋國家及門戶開放的宣導者，它對於上述問題有著特別的關注。另外，在運用它可以找到的有組織的物質力量以推行美國的主張方面，美國還有著與眾不同的機會和優勢。就在太平洋的前沿佔據的地盤而言，美國和歐洲強國站在一條水平線上；可是後者的地盤儘管有著軍事或商業意義，卻與本土非常遙遠，其間的漫長交通線在多處易受可能的敵人的襲擾。而且，如前所說，歐洲國家的海軍力量對比正趨於平衡，這使任何一國都越來越難以從本土向遠方派遣一支大的分遣艦隊。這裡我們又看到了歐洲的國際關係對美國利益的影響。 對美國來說，考慮在太平洋取得霸主地位這個多少令人覺得遺憾的詞被如此頻繁地使用以至於人們單單聽到它就會產生抵觸情緒不符合美國的利益。不過，確保對自己擁有的地盤及通向它們的道路的控制則是美國的合理之舉，不對任何他國產生危害。因為沒有哪一個國家相對於美國座落於這樣一個地理位置，以至於它的東方領地和其本土港口之間的交通處於美國的強大海軍的威脅之下，而英國海軍正是這樣針對著德國。可是，英國的困難在於它必須用海軍來控制出入德國的通道，而海軍對於作為一個一流國家的英國的自身生存又必不可少。美國就沒有這樣的問題；而且，由於它的地理位置，出於它與巴拿馬運河地區及遠東較近，它所擁有的軍事力量對於這兩個地區有著相當的影響力。當今的情形即是如此，雖然巴拿馬運河尚未開通。假如美國能在其太平洋海岸做好必要的長期性準備，必要時它的艦隊就能被很快地部署於此，以彌補美國艦隊先前的遠在他處所導致的損失。這要求美國將其戰列艦集結到一處無論是在大西洋還是太平洋，這是對它們的唯一適當的安排。不管美國艦隊的規模如何，只要它被調配得當，再加上距東方較近不僅便於美國採取行動，而且減少了其派出分遣艦隊的必要。它就能夠具備某些優勢。 德國海軍的近來發展對於美國在太平洋地區發揮作用有著最積極的影響。八年之前，也就是在英國和日本達成第一次同盟條約前不久及日俄戰爭前兩年，我寫了一篇論述各國海軍的趨向的文章，探討了相互對立的英日同盟及法俄同盟所面臨的困難和必要的對策。在其中，地中海地區交通的重要性及其暴露在敵人的威脅之下的弱點自然是一個突出的議題。當時，俄國在遠東部署了一支精銳艦隊，不過其後對它的使用卻令人可悲。如果那時發生了一場不僅僅將更多國家捲入其中的戰爭，就德國在這場戰爭中的意向或動作而言，當時的德國艦隊不會被認為將對力量平衡產生強有力的影響。那時英國還成功地保持著海軍的兩強標準，而且看來沒有理由懷疑它既能控制多條交通線，也能予其盟友以相當的援助，假如需要它做的不僅僅是在歐洲水域抑制法國海軍的話。 上述都是八年前的情形。今天的德國海軍日益強大，其實力很快就會僅次於英國海軍，而比包括美國海軍在內的他國海軍高出一大截。這種局面將使英國海軍被鎖縛於本土水域。面對這種狀況，如英國目前正在做的，它只能在將其海軍主力集結於本土周圍的情形下在前方採取行動，以保護其後的地帶，實際上也就是英國所有的殖民地以及英倫三島與外部世界間的至關重要的海上交通線。作為一種軍事舉措，這樣做完全正確。只要這點依然存在，而英國海軍又不會為災禍或懈怠所削弱，這種處置對於英國的防禦及旨在切斷德國海上交通的進攻行動都會起到積極作用。不過，英國不論在和平時期還是在戰時都必須維持這種作用，如果它在本土水域及其他地方之間分配戰列艦，其命運不會出人所料。奧地利在一八六六年和法國在一八七○年的遭遇都表明，高人一籌的力量和準備才會帶來令人意想不到的結果。 很明顯，在歐洲的緊張依然存在的情形下，英國和德國都不能將大批的力量投向太平洋地區。根據英國海軍部首腦在議會中對一個問題的回答，在一九一○年三月，英國在中國駐紮的戰列艦連一艘都沒有，一級巡洋艦只有四艘；在英屬東印度則既無戰列艦，也無一級巡洋艦。在其他地區，英德兩國的海軍及在其他方面的力量也絕對是需要考慮的作用因素。比如說，這些因素使另一個國家絕不會採取也許會讓這兩國暫時聯手對付自己的措施。不過，門戶開放作為一項政策如能得到遵循，並不會招致商業國家的抵制。如果誰企圖謀取不合理的國家特權，尤其是借助於強制力或是對其目前的佔有權的不公平運用，就可能促使有關國家採取行動以制止它對門戶開放原則的違反。該原則也就可能成為戰爭的緣由所在，而貿易機會上的平等的保持就不會激起對抗。體現在了德國和英國間敵對之中的這種一般意義上的對抗會左右其他歐洲國家相對弱小的海軍的行動；這些海軍都是均勢局面中的因素，而均勢局面正決定著所有的國家能否獨立行事。 上述狀況將使美國和日本這兩個主要的太平洋國家也是僅有的兩個瀕臨太平洋的海軍強國來體現太平洋地區的均勢局面。這是對國際和平的一個最好的鞏固，因為這個局面顯示的不是模糊不定的東西，而是令人一目了然的現實。美日兩國的海軍比任何其他國家的海軍都更易於在太平洋地區保持力量的集中，以至於甚至可以提出這樣的問題：正確的軍事政策是否會使美國的戰列艦艦隊毋須駐紮在太平洋而是大西洋？當前，歐洲的海軍力量平衡使英國和德國的艦隊都被保持在了北海地區，美國的大西洋海岸及門羅主義的推行因而也得到了保護，其程度是太平洋那邊的情形無法比擬的。在當前形勢下，德國和英國都不敢即使它們有心對美國的門羅主義對外政策加以破壞。 位於太平洋地區的日本對於門戶開放的態度與歐美國家甚為不同。它鄰近中國、滿洲和朝鮮，相互間交通的便捷給它帶來了某些天然的商業優勢。日本的另一個在自由競爭方面的優勢是它的勞動力依舊廉價。可是，市場的近在咫尺以及日本對它們的興趣不禁會使日本產生一種將其據為已有之感；在和組織渙散的國家打交道時，這種心理很容易轉變為謀求政治控制的嘗試，而這種控制歸根結底是借助於強權。於是，經常有報導說，日本正在謀求建立在政治控制之上的商業優勢且取得了一些進展。不管這些報導真實與否，它們至少說明了當時機允許或能夠創造機會時，一些國家孜孜追求的究竟是什麼。它和我們稱為保護主義的東西並無什麼二致，只不過後者是在被國際法或國家間的政策普遍認定為合理的範圍之內得以實施。中國的談判者們的軟弱無能和腐敗墮落招致了謀求政治控制的勢力，從而危及了門戶開放，並導致了這樣的一直存在的擔心，即以強權為後盾的不正當的影響正改變著各國在華所受待遇的平等，或者說正為未來這方面的不平等奠定基礎。毫無疑問，俄國和日本的基本趨向不管這兩國對此有什麼溢美之詞正促成了這種擔心。 經過在一代人有餘的時間內的發展，如今美國擁有的夏威夷群島上的勞動人口主要是日本人，他們無疑值得美國太平洋沿岸的日本移民羡慕。這一地帶的人口相對較少，和美國東部的交通聯繫由於快速列車也比較便捷，不過對於承擔戰爭需要的人員和物資的繁重運輸還顯吃力。也就是說，在交通不盡完善的情形下，美國落基山脈以東地區的人力、物力要經過長途跋涉才能予西海岸以支援。這和美國所具備的可經海上迅即抵達巴拿馬運河的優點截然相反。在當地沒有美國艦隊存在的情況下，對美國西海岸可輕而易舉地進行侵襲；雖然美國艦隊的隨後到達或許會彌補某些損失，但就當前的世界形勢而言，在美國的三大海岸線大西洋海岸、墨西哥灣海岸和太平洋海岸之中，太平洋地帶最具暴露性。 上述結論使美國自建國以來的國家實踐告一段落。就德國和日本的海軍而言，它們都是在距今不到一代人的時間內新崛起的力量；對於它們的國際影響，筆者依其所見已作了論述。只是對於日本海軍的意義談得較簡略，而對於德國海軍則著墨甚多，這是因為歐洲的體系是一個特別複雜的制衡系統，是多個世紀的發展演變的結果。要大致地瞭解這個體系並不十分困難；不過，它又包含著多種多樣的細節，要想對其進行仔細分析並對可能的變化作出準確估計，不具備大量的細微知識和對歷史的相當瞭解就不可能做到。 掌握這些知識、進行這種分析需要一生的精力，只有一個專家才可能這麼做。這樣的專家在歐洲也許只有極少的幾位，而美國人可能覺得這類人並非迫切之需。不過，儘管國家必須由專家來掌舵，就像軍隊要由將軍來統帥，國家的政策也應象一支軍隊的行動計畫那樣被調製得簡明有理以使那些處於下屬地位的執行者能領會、贊成領導者的意圖，並欣然給予支援這種支援只有通情達理才可以依靠。對於當今涉及整個世界的重大問題，美國人民應當有所瞭解，因為它們空前地和作為世界大家庭成員的我們息息相關。做到了這點，國家的政策才不會僅僅是政府的政策，也會成為全體人民的政策。才會具有上下一心賦予它的力量。沒有這股力量，國家的任何作為都不可能達到效果，至少就對外政策而言是如此。 在一九一○年中，最顯著地改變了各國間相互關係狀況的事件是七月四日俄日協定的達成。該協定的意義在今天尚不能被清晰、徹底地認知，但顯而易見的是它不僅旨在調節俄日兩強在遠東的微妙交結點上的相互關係，也體現了兩國針對侵害雙方利益的他國政策所給予的相互支持。可能和這兩個國家相對立的不僅有歐洲或美洲的國家，也包括中國，其領土正是俄日協定的主題所在。 外交行動要求迅速，俄日協定的出臺正是緊隨著美國建議的提出；該建議主張保證中國領土上由日俄控制的鐵路以及其他擬在滿洲修建的鐵路的中立化。所以，儘管日俄兩國向公眾明言它們間的協定的實質內容在美國的建議被送達之前就已確定，但該協定的構擬在人看來還是表明了它們攜手抗拒和上述美國建議有著同樣目的的任何可能干涉的真實意圖。其實，除了以外交方式，這種干涉根本不可能發生，除非看來可能出現對門戶開放狀態的自由運轉的阻礙。這樣的阻礙將對所有的海洋國家產生同樣的影響，雖然和十年前一樣，對形勢的最終的有效控制權實際上還握在這些國家的海軍手中，可是歐洲形勢的過於微妙使它們無力進行干涉以維護門戶開放制度，而德國至少也不會重蹈英國的覆轍，採取任何會使俄國從遠東的糾葛中解脫出來的行動，因為這在當前只會加大俄國在歐洲對德國施壓的能力。 俄日協定的影響對一些國家來說是不加思索就能明白一二的。歸根結底，該協定會阻滯德國海軍的發展，因為這一直受惠於和日本進行災難性戰爭及隨之而來的國內動盪導致的俄國的衰弱。日本在日俄戰爭中的勝利和英日同盟條約密不可分，它有效地防止了法國和其盟友俄國聯手反日，而法國在一八九五年就曾予俄國以支持。因此，英國以一種近乎直接的方式表明德國卸去了俄國對其的壓力，而這使德國可以將更多的財力投入到海軍的擴展之中。不過這種好處一定程度上會因最近的俄日協定而打些折扣。