contributor
27,126
edits
Changes
Anglo-Japanese Convention of 1854 (view source)
Revision as of 01:26, 17 August 2014
, 01:26, 17 August 2014no edit summary
Stirling stated the core of his purpose as being that since the Royal Navy planned to make war upon Russian ships in the waters off Japan, and since engaging in such violence within Japanese ports would be inappropriate, he was here to inquire as to the Japanese government's position regarding these matters. He had hoped, perhaps, to see the Japanese refuse to supply, repair, or otherwise provide service to Russian warships temporarily, for the duration of this war, even if it meant the British would also be denied such services. However, misled by their own presumptions about the British, and by Nishi's translations, Mizuno and his men brushed aside these more specific concerns to instead focus on discussing a treaty after the pattern of that agreed to with Perry. The end result was the opposite of that which Stirling expected, the Japanese ''opening'' their ports to both Russian and British ships, even though this meant Japanese provisions would then be used to repair and supply ships on both sides of a conflict, which would then use those provisions to war upon one another.
Stirling stated the core of his purpose as being that since the Royal Navy planned to make war upon Russian ships in the waters off Japan, and since engaging in such violence within Japanese ports would be inappropriate, he was here to inquire as to the Japanese government's position regarding these matters. He had hoped, perhaps, to see the Japanese refuse to supply, repair, or otherwise provide service to Russian warships temporarily, for the duration of this war, even if it meant the British would also be denied such services. However, misled by their own presumptions about the British, and by Nishi's translations, Mizuno and his men brushed aside these more specific concerns to instead focus on discussing a treaty after the pattern of that agreed to with Perry. The end result was the opposite of that which Stirling expected, the Japanese ''opening'' their ports to both Russian and British ships, even though this meant Japanese provisions would then be used to repair and supply ships on both sides of a conflict, which would then use those provisions to war upon one another.
Following three sessions of negotiations, held on 1854/8/13 (Oct 4), 8/18 (Oct 9), and 8/23 (Oct 14), the Anglo-Japanese Convention was drafted in its final form and signed on 8/23. It provided for British ships access to Nagasaki immediately, and to Hakodate beginning 50 days from Stirling's departure, in order to acquire firewood, water, and other necessary provisions, and in order to perform repairs. British ships were permitted at other ports only in case of distress, weather, and the like, and their crews were to be subject to Japanese law; anyone in violation of Japanese law could be denied entry to Japanese ports. Finally, there was a "most favored nation" clause, stating that if Japan were to open other ports to ships of other nations, these would have to be opened to British ships as well. As was the case with the [[Convention of Kanagawa]] signed with Perry earlier in the year, however, there were some points where differences in wording between the different languages' versions of the document, or simply differences in understanding or interpretation, created leeway for considerable differences in what each side believed they had agreed to. One such key element in this treaty was that while the Japanese wording explicitly focused on the issue of providing British access to any ports other nations had access to, the British understanding of the document was a bit broader, including the extension to the British of more or less any and all privileges, freedoms, or rights offered to other nations.
Stirling was not a diplomatic official, was not properly empowered to be entering into such agreements, and was neither expert in diplomatic or legal wording, nor in the precise political or policy desires of his government. As a result, this Convention, which was both conducted unexpectedly and in an unauthorized manner, and which did not contain any provisions allowing for formal trade relations, was deeply unpopular among many key elements of British government and society.
{{stub}}
{{stub}}