Search

Though China had never been part of Britain's formal empire, a century of trade and warfare had caused China to cede trading and territorial rights to Britain. But from 1925 to 1927 the rise of the Kuomintang and the anti-imperialistic movement began to threaten British interests in China, alarming policy makers in London. At the same time, the China issue also captured the attention of MPs, who spent long sessions debating British policy towards China. These debates reveal much about MPs' perceptions of China, and can be seen as a microcosm of the British public sphere, encapsulating the multivalent British opinions on the world around them. Discussions of the 'China Situation' became an opportunity to express opinions on most of the important topics of the day - the economy, the General Strike, the Red Scare, disarmament, and the future of empire. A close reading of these debates can tell us much, not only about assumptions MPs held about China and the Chinese people, but also about issues closer to home. Three major events in China grabbed the attention of parliament in the period 1925-7. They were: (1) the May 30th Movement and the subsequent anti-British boycott in 1925; (2) the decision to send troops to Shanghai in January 1927; and (3) the so-called Nanking outrages, when British subjects in China were killed by Nationalist Army troops. What follows is a description and analysis of the debates over these three episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the origins of nationalism are sought in global historical trends, few analysts have shown how nations themselves are constituted and re-shaped by circulating global power, ideas and models. The view from East Asia shows that these circulations are mediated by regional developments and interactions which bind these nations together in rivalry and interdependence. The histories of China, Japan and Korea have been closely tied together since the end of the nineteenth century and, with a gap of about thirty years during the Cold War, have intensified once again. The global and regional constitution of nations produces a dialectic between its global form and aspirations and misrecognition of this constitution arising from the self-perception of nationalism as historically immanent. This tension between the global constitution and national misrecognition contributes to the tenacity of nationalism. It also allows us to get a better grasp of the relationship between historical change and structure in nationalism and the relationship between state and popular nationalisms in the countries of the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]