From: hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga)
Subject: Re: on extraterritoriality
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:00:48 GMT


First allow me to quote the entire article:

In article <MS-C.726401582.377401575.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) writes:
>The subject of the unequal treaties and extraterritoriality has been brought
>up on multiple occasions, but with little understanding of what brought them
>about.
>
>Remember, Japan and China in the mid 19th century were feudal nations where a
>member of the ruling class could kill anyone for no reason at all.  Torture
>was the norm.  The common people stayed alive by avoiding the ruling class as
>much as possible.
>
>The basis of extraterritoriality was that the system of law in Japan and China
>was too barbaric to subject foreigners to.  It was.  Japan and China reacted
>to the humiliation in different ways.  Reformers in both countries saw it as
>an opportunity to overturn the old system and establish a system based in law.
>They succeeded in Japan, because the reformers were the government.  They
>failed in China, and continued instability gave the western powers (and Japan)
>the excuse to hold on to extraterritorial rights until WWII.
>
>Before you condemn the western powers for insisting upon extraterritoriality,
>you may want to consider if *you* would have wanted to live under what passed
>for ``Japanese law'' in the 1860's.  The bakufu was cruel, and its overthrow
>was based in part upon a *Japanese* desire to be rid of the samurai system
>(although this was not recognized by the samurai of Satsuma and Cho^shu^ who
>participated -- they murdered Sakamoto Ryo^ma when they figured it out...).
>One of the purposes of Iwakura Tomomi's mission to the West in the early Meiji
>years was to convince the western powers that the barbaric feudal system had
>been overthrown and thus there was no longer a need for extraterritoriality.
>It was premature, and thus unsuccessful; but by the end of the century Japan
>had shaken off the unequal treaties (and began imposing such on China...).
>
>It is all fine and good to argue ``when in Rome, do as the Romans do'', but
>that presupposes a basic respect for human rights that was lacking in feudal
>societies.  Even the slaves in the US South had a legally-respected right to
>life, and slave-owners who killed their slaves could be prosecuted for murder.

This kind of reasoning strikes me as very odd.
It is the same logic (or rather, excuse) that leads to saying that
the savages can't be left on their own, that they must be changed of
their ways, and must be "guided" by a helping hand.
Are you claiming that extraterritorialism is merely a way of seclusion
to ensure safety of your own people?
This, of course, won't do.
It excludes one from his own territorial land (just like today's US bases),
enforces providing exceptional service,
takes over legal jurisdiction (which means that a native citizen would
be tried by foreign laws), and there were even movements to take hold
on legislature (which, did not realize).
Settlements actually served as havens for foreign criminals --
there are numerous cases in which they weren't even tried, let alone convicted.
The sense of inequality drawn here was the main emotional driving force
that claimed for its renunciation.
Extraterritorialism is an obvious denial of sovereignity, mutuality;
blatant domestic intervention, and imposing of a "second-grade" rating.
And I'm not even mentioning the unequal trade treaties (which, for one
thing, denied deciding of tariffs by one's own) -- which is obviously
linked to it.

If you're saying that there is universality in the claim that
extraterritorialism is acceptable, then how much do we find it in
today's world?  How much is it approved of?  Surely there must be
countries that are "below" the standard of 19C. Japan (or China).

And how much superiority can the West claim?
Emancipation preceded the first of the treaties, 
and it was (or still is?) a long time before it came in effect.
Ah:
>It is all fine and good to argue ``when in Rome, do as the Romans do'', but
>that presupposes a basic respect for human rights that was lacking in feudal
>societies.  Even the slaves in the US South had a legally-respected right to
>life, and slave-owners who killed their slaves could be prosecuted for murder.

Are you talking only of the right to life, or civil rights in general?
And what is this "could"?
This seems a restraint on your side that it was actually not the case
(but at the same time, seems hypocritical).
More importantly, did they fare the same respect for human rights
to the natives (Japan included, but more on other colonies).


On to some specifics (but not in detail).
>Remember, Japan and China in the mid 19th century were feudal nations where a
>member of the ruling class could kill anyone for no reason at all.

No (at least for Japan: I can't speak for China).
Samurai and Chounin were under different jurisdiction, but although the
samurai could "kill" (though such occasions were rare, especially in the
later Edo period), but not for no reason.
They would be prosecuted and convicted if not.
Otherwise, how can one stop a samurai-klan of robbers?
(see any JIDAIGEKI on that :-)

>Torture was the norm.

Torture against whom?

>The bakufu was cruel, and its overthrow
>was based in part upon a *Japanese* desire to be rid of the samurai system
>(although this was not recognized by the samurai of Satsuma and Cho^shu^ who
>participated -- they murdered Sakamoto Ryo^ma when they figured it out...).

Who are you addressing by "they"?
Sakamoto was killed by Bakufu Mimawari-gumi, while working for
a Satsuma-Choushuu coalition.

>One of the purposes of Iwakura Tomomi's mission to the West in the early Meiji
>years was to convince the western powers that the barbaric feudal system had
>been overthrown and thus there was no longer a need for extraterritoriality.

The main aim of Iwakura's mission was not on the unequal treaties issue
or a matter of convincing (though I won't deny that there was such an
element), but mostly to survey on the Western countries.
The main movement for resolution of unequal treaties came years later.

>It was premature, and thus unsuccessful; but by the end of the century Japan
>had shaken off the unequal treaties (and began imposing such on China...).

Sad.
A beaten dog thinks he can have his share.

-Yuzuru Hiraga
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan