The Israeli / Palestinian Conflict and Water Rights

Bringing peace to the Arab / Israeli Conflict is a beautiful statement, but practically speaking it brings up many issues that are not easily solved.  Like many disagreements there are several issues that have to be solved to bring the main goal of peace in the region.  Some of the issues that plague all negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are water rights, the barrier wall in between Palestinian lands and Israel, Israeli settlements that have been built after 1967 on former Palestinian land, and also Jerusalem; who should control this city and this argument alone would be huge and could be argued on a block to block level. 

This particular essay will briefly look at one of the lesser known aspects of this conflict but one I feel is of vital importance to both Palestinians as well as Israelis; and that is the issue will be water rights.

I am assuming that most people would ask why does this even matter?  When watching the news, reading the history of the conflict it seems that this issue of the four seems to never be mentioned if at all.  The truth of the matter is that water probably plays a larger issue than all the others.  When all is said in done, a wall is an issue but gates can be put in, buffer zones created, etc.  Settlements can be demolished or accepted as part of Israel depending on the agreement; even Jerusalem itself is just a city.  I know many who are devout Muslim, Jewish, and Christian that would disagree with this outlook but the fact of the matter is economically speaking loosing or gaining control of Jerusalem will not make or break either state in the near future. 

With all that being said water is a major building block of life itself.  When looking at major civilizations, cities, hubs of industry and technology the main thing in common is they all have easy access to cheap water.  Ancient Mesopotamians would not have survived and thrived near as well if it wasn’t for the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the Ancient Egyptians were made by the Nile River and even New York City grew immensely after the Erie Canal linked the Great Lakes of the American Midwest with the Atlantic Ocean making New York City a center of industry and commerce for the United States, and soon the world.  Even when looking at the history of other cities such as Los Angeles, the city itself didn’t bloom into the west coast power it is today until an aqueduct was built supplying the city with the water it needed.  Those examples as well as many others show the importance of water to any growing civilization.

One may make an argument that New York City and Los Angeles are not in the Middle East which is true but look at population statistics across the world when it comes to where people live versus where the water is.  From the following maps you can see where water plays a direct role in where people live:

Above: The darker the shades of red equate to higher the population density.  Look at the coasts and the areas around lakes and rivers; these areas have substantially higher population densities. (1)  

  

Above:  A map of the continent of Africa shows population density.  Egypt is a prime example of how water effects where people live. (2)

Above:  Map of Iraq shows how population density has not changed much since the times of the ancient Mesopotamians. (3)

            Without filling this essay with maps upon maps, it is easy to see why water is essential to any population.  The Israeli – Palestinian conflict is no different in this aspect; to quote the American Historian Jack Temple Kirby “drainage is destiny.”(4)  Although this phrase doesn’t sound sexy, in fact it sounds rather nerdy; but the statement is true when looking at population density maps.

            Water, which many in the developed world take for granted is necessary for any civilization to survive.  One can make the case that the current actions of the Israeli government in regard to water and Palestinians are very discriminatory.  The following are some statistical information in regards to water in Israel as well as Palestine:

·        Israeli settlers pay $0.40 per cubic meter for domestic consumption; the Palestinians pay $1.20.(5)

·        Israeli settlements are connected to the Israeli water network.  10%-20% of the West Bank Palestinians (200,000 residents) are not connected to a water network; 9% buy water from tankers.(5)

The high price of water in Palestine has caused the locals to seek water from elsewhere; many times from polluted streams which leads to an increase in the spread of disease and infant / child / adult mortality rates.  If cheap clean water cannot be accessed, then a population will shrink either by disease, thirst or migration. 

When water becomes an issue for hygiene, how is water to be used in the irrigation of crops and for the watering of livestock?  The answer to that question is it isn’t.  Palestinian’s who once had successful citrus farms are left to scrape by for their very existence without access to cheap, clean water.  Livestock is not an option in many cases or isn’t as plentiful because of water as well.  If people were to become ill from drinking tainted disease ridden water, that same filth cannot be given to livestock or used to water crops; all those fore mentioned things are not people but need access to clean water to survive.  Livestock or crops that are watered with diseased water will suffer the same fate as a person who was to drink it, illness or death.

The following are some images of a Palestinian and Israeli villages, guess which one is which (Hint: Israelis have the access to cheap water): 

Top Left:   An empty Palestinian agricultural reservoir near Jiftlik in the West Bank. (5)

Top Right:  Israeli settlers in Maaleh Adumim enjoy a swim. (5)

            I know that not everyone in this world can own a swimming pool but can the question be asked; is it moral to own a swimming pool when your neighbors (and by Israeli definition refuges living in your own country) can’t even fill a reservoir for farming?           

Although it is easy to condemn the Israeli’s way of life in regards to how they live as compared to their neighbors in regards to water; it is another thing to say they are doing something wrong.  That issue is harder to explain but we will attempt to figure out this complex issue ahead.  So what does each side say in regards to water? 

The Palestinian side is really very simple to understand; they claim that the Israeli’s are stealing their water.  I will focus more in depth on their point of view shortly but for now let’s focus on the Israeli point of view before the essay becomes biased.  The Israeli point of view on water rights is the following; we have prior rights to the aquifer and we are taking the water though our access to it.  The best example for this argument I am going to steal off of the movie “There Will Be Blood.”(7)  In the movie the main character Daniel Plainview played Daniel Day-Lewis is explaining to Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) why he doesn’t need the lease on a particular piece of land to drill for oil because he already has the lease on the surrounding land:

  

“Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry, I’m so sorry. Here: if you have a milkshake... and I have a milkshake... and I have a straw; there it is, that’s the straw, see? Watch it. My straw reaches across the room... and starts to drink your milkshake: I... drink... your... milkshake! [slurps] I drink it up!”

If that quote wasn’t clear enough look at it this way, the Palestinians and the Israelis share the same milkshake (aquifer.)  The Israelis are taking the milkshake (water) like crazy through their straw and if the Palestinians aren’t getting any that isn’t their fault.

Both sides in this argument claim to have sole access to drilling rights and in all actuality both sides do have the right to drill for water.  Treaty after treaty and UN resolution after resolution has stated that Israel and Palestine have rights to the natural resources, water being one of them.  If that was the case why can’t they each drill in their own sovereign state?  That is where other issues non-water related are affecting this one.  Radicals on each side of the argument dispute the rivals existence let alone sovereignty.  As the situation currently stands the Palestinian state does not have the ability or the right to drill for their water in the eyes of the Israelis.  The Israelis see themselves as the care takers of the water supply and will distribute it fairly.   Israel also makes the case that it is vital to their nations security that they are in charge of water drilling and that if Palestinians wanted to drill for their own water then they should have accepted the peace treaty they were offered in 2000.

To better understand the situation between Israel and Palestine on water lets first look at what water sources they share.  Israel and Palestine share two main water sources; two aquifers and the Jordan River and its tributaries.  The Mountain Aquifer which is one of the aquifers that we are speaking of is a system extending over approximately 130 square kilometers.  It stretches from Mt. Carmel in the north to Be’er Sheva in the south.  Israel also shares their coastal aquifer with Gaza on the coast.  These two aquifers are not connected.     

     

Above:  A map showing the location of the coastal aquifer and the mountain aquifer in Israel and Palestine. (8)

The Mountain Aquifer is feed mostly by rain water that falls on the mountains in the West Bank which then seeps into the ground.  The water then flows eastward and westward to the reservoir areas, from where it is drawn by wells. This source supplies about one-quarter of the water needs of Israel and the Israeli settlements and almost all the running water that Palestinians in the West Bank receive.(9)

The Coastal Aquifer has dropped in significance over time.  Over pumping of the aquifer has led to seepage from the Mediterranean causing salt levels to rise and also pollution from industrial complexes on the coast have led to inability to use this source of water.(10)  Israel over the past 50 years has been pumping water from this source quicker than it could replenish itself.  Desalination can be used to fix this issue but it is costly and toxins from manufacturing are harder to extract from ground water than salt is.  This Aquifer is also used a great deal by those living in the Gaza Strip as well as those in Israel. 

The second joint source of water is the upper Jordan River and its tributaries.  Some of the tributaries of the Jordan River include the Sea of Galilee, the Yarmuh River and the lower Jordan River as well. Although only the Jordan River is shared geographically with Jordan; the water Israel draws from the Jordan River and its tributaries directly affect the amount of water in the Jordan River itself. This source of water supplies approximately one-third of Israel’s water needs as well as some of the water needs of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Palestinians on the other hand do not receive any water from this source.

Demand for water in the region continues to grow over time because the population of the region has been on the rise for some time.  Also with time comes technology meaning more business’s and people are connected onto a water grid as well.  All of these things have helped led to a short falls in water supply.  As opposed to working with its neighbors and Palestine Israel has decided the best solution to this problem is to limit the access of Palestinians to this water.  By limiting Palestinian access it prevents supply from meeting demand and water prices to escalate over time.  Israel 's water policy in the Occupied Territories has benefited Israel in two primary ways:

1.      Preservation of the unequal division of the shared groundwater in the West Bank's Western Aquifer and Northern Aquifer. This division was created prior to the occupation, a result of the gap between economic and technological development in Israel as opposed to the West Bank . However, the gap would have likely diminished had Israel not prevented it.

2.      Utilization of new water sources, to which Israel had no access prior to 1967, such as the Eastern Aquifer (in the West Bank ) and the Coastal Aquifer, primarily to benefit Israeli settlements established in those areas.(9)

In the West Bank as well as Gaza the drilling of new wells is strictly forbidden by the Israeli government limiting the ability of the Palestinians to become self-sufficient in regards to water although plenty of water lies under their feet.  According to military orders, drilling a well required obtaining a permit, which entailed a lengthy and complicated bureaucratic process.  The vast majority of applications submitted during the occupation were denied.  It should be noted that the rationing of the drilling of wells is a good idea; the only issue with it is that the Israelis are biased when issuing permits when allowing for new wells discriminating against Palestinians.

Not only is supply an issue in the West Bank and Gaza, but the means of transporting water is an issue as well.  The infrastructure needs to be updated periodically to prevent failure; unfortunately some places in the West Bank and Gaza haven’t had maintenance preformed since pre-1967.  In Gaza the embargo has led to the corruption of ground water and the inability to clean their water because many supplies are not allowed through. 

In closing the best possible solution I can see is that Israel needs to put forth a consorted effort to rebuild a rejuvenate the water infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza.  If Israel is unwilling to do so then they should allow for the Palestinians to do so but sitting back and ignoring the issue cannot be the practice of the future.  The longer Palestinians go without essential services and human functions like water the more and more credibility they will lose in the international community.  This is not the Cold War, the world has become flat with the internet.  As more and more people around the world become aware of the basic issues facing Palestinians like water; the more these same Palestinians gain sympathy and the moral high ground. 

Works Cited

1.      "US POPULATION DENSITY MAP." Map. Map of USA. Print.

2.      Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/65614/Population-density-of-Africa>.

3.      "Iraq Population Density Map - Iraq • Mappery." Real Life Map Collection • Mappery. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://mappery.com/map-of/Iraq-Population-Density-Map-2>.

4.      Cayton, Andrew R. L., and Stuart D. Hobbs. The Center of a Great Empire: the Ohio Country in the Early American Republic. Athens: Ohio UP, 2005. Print.

5.      Shalhevet, Sarit. "Water Rights and Water Allocation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority." Lecture.

From On-line lecture

6.      Viklund, Andreas. "Water in Palestine « Fundamental Human Rights." Fundamental Human Rights. Blog at WordPress.com. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <https://rtsf.wordpress.com/category/water-in-palestine/>.

7.      THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.therewillbeblood.com/>.

8.      Wulfsohn, Aubrey. "WHAT RETREAT FROM THE TERRITORIES MEANS FOR ISRAEL'S WATER SUPPLY - FREEMAN CENTER BLOG." Freeman Center for Strategic Studies. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/18-Aubrey-Wulfsohn-WHAT-RETREAT-FROM-THE-TERRITORIES-MEANS-FOR-ISRAELS-WATER-SUPPLY.html>.

9.      "B'Tselem - The Water Crisis." Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http://www.btselem.org/english/Water/Index.asp>.

10. Rinat, Zafrir. "Green Groups Warn: Coastal Aquifer Pollution Is Limiting Israel's Water Supply." Haaretz.com. Haaretz News, 21 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/green-groups-warn-coastal-aquifer-pollution-is-limiting-israel-s-water-supply-1.350728>.

The Lead Up and Consequences of the Russo – Japanese War

The following essay will attempt to explain some key elements to the Russo – Japanese War.  We will not be looking that closely at the war itself but rather events and players leading up to, and following the war itself.  Some of the questions that need to be addressed is who was involved and why, what the end result was for all parties involved, and how it affected regional and global relations between parties involved as a whole.

Why was the Russo – Japanese War relevant?  The Russo – Japanese War had lasting effects on Russia, Japan, and the Far East region as a whole.  The Sino – Japanese War knocked one of the three regional powers, China, out of the picture a decade earlier so the fight for regional supremacy at this point in time was between Japan and Russia.  One could even make the argument that one of the lasting effects of this war is that in some way it played an effect on what side the Japanese entered the First and Second World War on.  If the Japanese would have been soundly defeated in the Russo – Japanese War would Japan’s imperial drive still have been there?  It is hard to say but I think the Japanese would have played a much smaller role in both World Wars if any at all.

The Russo – Japanese War also showed the weakness of the Tsar as a leader.  By most estimates the Russians should have been able to win this war fairly easily and the people of Russia were crushed when a victory was not attained.  The defeat of the Russian army as well as the growing unrest at home made the Tsar look weak and helped cause his ultimate downfall.  Again, this is just conjecture and there is no way of proving this but if the Russian’s would have had solid victories in this conflict would the communist revolution even have occurred?  The Russo – Japanese War also killed the expansion of the Russian Empire as well and eliminated Russia as a contender for regional superpower.

After the Treaty of Portsmouth which formally ended the Russo – Japanese War the Japanese people ended up paying more in taxes to offset the cost of the war.  In the formal treaty there was no payment of reparation from either side and very little territory was gained by the Japanese.  Many of the Japanese people saw this as a waste because the ends were not justified by the means in their opinion.  After peoples revolts this caused the government to become more militaristic after the death of the Meiji Emperor.  The very militaristic government that came into power is the very government that ended up aggressively pursuing Japanese interests through both World Wars.

Focusing more on the Russo – Japanese War itself; the war took place from February 8^th 1904 till the signing of the Treaty of Portsmouth on September 5^th 1905 and was called by some historians the first great war of the 20th century.  The result of this war came was that Japan surged on after this to become a regional imperial power and Russia played a lesser role in the region till the late 1930’s, early 1940’s.  Russia and Japan were obviously involved in this war but to a lesser known extent there was one other nation that also declared was on the Japanese and that was the Principality of Montenegro.  Montenegro was puppet state of Russia and an ally of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War.  Volunteers from Montenegro were fighting in the Russian Army.  In 2006 Japan recognized Montenegrin independence and declared the war being over and after 101 years a peace treaty was signed between Russia and Japan.(1)  

So what was the Russo – Japanese War really about?  Both Russia and Japan wanted to exert themselves as superpowers in the Far East and the only way that would be possible is for one to defeat the other.  Although the Japanese didn’t technically vanquish the Russians, the victories made by the Japanese as well as the implosion of Russian society in the early 20^th century established Japan as the regional power. 

Russia wished to gain power in the Far East and also to gain a warm weather port on the Pacific Ocean so they would not be frozen in during the bitter Russian winters.  Russia also sought to attain its position as a global power; if the Russians were to be defeated by Japan how serious would the rest of the Western powers take Russia, the answer to that is very little.  Japan wished to gain more territory and resources that surrounded the tiny island nation all throughout the mainland around them.  For Japan this also an opportunity for them to even is considered a world power, something they were striving for and had been for half a century before this.

So now that we have looked over the events leading up to the war the next thing to look at would be the treaty that ended the war, the Treaty of Portsmouth.  The Treaty of Portsmouth formally ended the Russo-Japanese War and was brokered by the United States.  

The formal result of the Treaty of Portsmouth brought peace between Japan and Russia, acknowledged that 

“The Imperial Russian Government, acknowledging that Japan possesses in Korea paramount political, military and economical interests engages neither to obstruct nor interfere with measures for guidance, protection and control which the Imperial Government of Japan may find necessary to take in Korea.”(2)

The treaty also stated that Russia must yield all claims in Manchuria and brought Port Arthur was under Japanese control.

With the details of the treaty being stated the next logical question is why the United States was chosen to mediate.  The United States did it partially for prestige but the main reason behind this was that the United States as well as many other Western nations was invested heavily in the region.  The United States acquired the Philippines after the Spanish – American War at the end of the 19^th century and it did not want to see one of its new prize possessions become independent or fall under someone else’s control.  Negotiating this peace treaty for the United States would give them an opportunity to help secure some of their interests.

The United States had already worked privately on The Taft–Katsura Agreement so the Japanese and the United States both new where each side stood on certain issues like Korea and the Philippines.  The Taft–Katsura Agreement was a set of notes taken during conversations between United States Secretary of War William Howard Taft and Prime Minister of Japan Katsura Taro on July 29^th 1905.  The notes were discovered in 1924; there was never a signed agreement or secret treaty, only a memorandum of a conversation regarding Japanese-American relations.  With all these aims of the United States being stated, one can see their goals or intentions were not completely wholesome.

The United States as well as the rest of the West consequently didn’t want to see either side come out too strong either.  Although Russia is considered part of the West, it has always been considered an outsider.  The traditional western powers were not fond of either Russia or Japan growing too strong in the region; if this was to happen traditional western powers would not be able to then take advantage of weaker states like China and those in South-East Asia.        

So in closing, how did these two super powers fare after the war?  Both Russia and Japan suffered from social unrest, but Japan was able to reform and reinvent causing it to become more powerful whereas Russia fell into eventual chaos before rising as a world power in the 1930’s and 40’s.  Although the direct results of this war in world history are hard to see, the indirect consequences of this war affected the world today as we know it.   

1.       http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21221

2.       http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Portsmouth

An Overview of Japanese / United States Relations: 1900 – 1930

US – Japanese relations from 1900 – 1930 where constantly changing for several different reasons.  Public opinion, a world war, and conquest for new territory kept these two nations teetering on the edge of hostility for some time and World War II was partially the result of these turbulent relations.  Over this thirty year span there were high and low points, and several different events caused these two then growing nations to collide.  This essay will cover some of the major events and explain things from the Japanese as well as an American point of view.

Japanese / US Relations Before 1900

Relations between the Japanese and the United States started off rocky at best.  Japan had been an isolationist state from the early 17^th CE century when a western presence had a little more than just trade in mind.  Actions of the West in China showed Japan that they would not be able to trust the Western powers to keep their word and stay out of politics in Japan.  From that point on Japan had very little to do with the rest of the world until 1853. 

On July 8th, 1853 four black ships led by the USS Powhatan and commanded by Commodore Matthew Perry, anchored at Edo Bay; never before had the Japanese seen ships steaming with smoke.  Matthew Perry brought a letter from the President of the United States, Millard Fillmore, to the Emperor of Japan. He waited with his armed ships and refused to see any of the lesser dignitaries sent by the Japanese, insisting on dealing only with the highest emissaries of the Emperor.  On March 31st, 1854 representatives of Japan and the United States signed a historic treaty.  Negotiations went several months between Perry and Japanese officials on achieving the U.S goal of opening the doors of trade with Japan.

The Japanese government realized that their country was in no position to defend itself against a foreign power, and Japan could not retain its isolation policy without risking war. On March 31st, 1854 Perry received what he had so dearly worked for, a treaty with Japan. The treaty provided for:

·        Peace and friendship between the United States and Japan.

·        Opening of two ports to American ships at Shimoda and Hakodate

·        Help for any American ships wrecked on the Japanese coast and protection for shipwrecked persons

·        Permission for American ships to buy supplies, coal, water, and other necessary provisions in Japanese ports.

Needless to say this forced treaty left a bitter taste in the mouth of Japanese conservatives and this action by the United States government would be a constant reminder to the Japanese of how Western powers handled peoples and nations that were not cut from the same cloth. 

Another aspect of the big picture in regards to Japanese / US relations before 1900 was the land grab in the Pacific that led into and continued into the early 20^th century.  In this aspect both the Japanese as well of the United States were guilty of being malicious to native peoples as well as other world and regional powers. 

The time frame in question marked the beginning of American Imperialism in the Pacific with the Spanish – American War and the subsequent acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and a very pro US government in Cuba.  The lands gained by the United States during this war were not the only lands acquired in the Pacific Ocean.  American Samoa was gained in the Treaty of Berlin in 1899; in 1900 Hawaii officially became territory of the United States although the United States government had meddled in the island nation’s politics long before this.  The Midway Islands were discovered July 8, 1859 by Captain N.C. Brooks and annexed by the United States; the Wake Islands were discovered by the British in 1796 and annexed by the U.S. in 1899.  All these islands that were being annexed by the United States was drawing the United States closer and closer to Asia and by default lands that Japan may have wanted as their own. 

On the other hand Japan is not innocent of having imperial aspirations at this time.  Many of these lands that were acquired by the United States would have possibly been acquired by the Japanese if they were in the position to but when the united States was expanding in the Pacific Japan was occupied with other regional powers such as Russia and China; significant Japanese expansions came in the early 20^th century. 

Although Japan did not acquire a great deal of new lands in the late 19^th century it did put the machine in motion and made expansion in the 20^th century possible.  Japan was involved in the Sino – Japanese War which sealed the fate of Qing China maybe decades sooner than it would have went without being disgraced in this war.  The Sino – Japanese War essentially established that there were two major powers in the region, Japan and Russia; in the early 20^th century a war with the Japanese as well as a communist revolution would eliminate Russia from the shared seat of power and leave Japan as the major regional power and a growing international power as well.     

One of the direct results of the Sino – Japanese War was that Taiwan came directly under Japanese control.  Some Chinese ports also became open to Japanese manufactured goods and Japanese factories.  These gains gave the Japanese the confidence to become an imperial power in the region over the next several decades.  Japan’s thirst for new lands in the early 20^th century all but established Japan as the regional power and the peace treaty from this particular war was brokered by none other than the United States.

The Russo – Japanese War and the Treaty of Portsmouth

After the Sino – Japanese War, three regional powers in the Far East were narrowed down to two rival powers in Japan and Russia.  The Sino – Japanese War limited the power of the Qing Empire in China and caused sent the Empires of Japan and Russia on a collision course.  The Russo – Japanese War was considered the first great war of the 20^th century and its origins can be found in territorial ambitions of Japan and Russia and their individual quests to control the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria.  Russia wanted to establish a warm weather port on the Pacific Ocean and the Japanese were determined to keep Russia from accomplishing this goal.  Negotiations between Russia and Japan had gone on for almost a decade with no success before they finally went to war in 1904.   

           

After a year of fighting the war was not closer to establishing a resolution than before the war.  Although the Japanese were effective in winning many battles they were where also not able to end Russian ambition in the region.  One of the major reasons Russia wanted to bring the war to an end is not because they did not think they could defeat the Japanese but rather growing unrest in Russia limited their ability to wage war.  The embarrassing string of defeats inflamed the Russian people's dissatisfaction with their inefficient and corrupt Tsarist government, and proved a major cause of the Russian Revolution of 1905.

           

With the Japanese in a firm control of the fighting and Russia now dealing with larger problems in their eyes Russia as well as Japan to an extent wanted peace.  The United States, who were worried by what they saw going on between these two powers decided to step in and negotiate a peace between the two warring powers.  One of the main goals of the United States in mediating this was to make sure that neither power became too powerful as a result of this treaty.  The United States as well as other traditional western powers preferred in fighting between the regional powers of East Asia like Russia, Japan, and China because this enabled Western powers to take advantage of the situation.  The Treaty of Portsmouth negotiations took place in Portsmouth, NH and were signed on September 5^th 1905.  Theodore Roosevelt received a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring an end to this conflict.  

In accordance with the treaty, both Japan and Russia agreed to evacuate Manchuria and return its sovereignty to China, but Japan was leased the Liaodong Peninsula (containing Port Arthur and Talien), and the Russian rail system in southern Manchuria with access to strategic resources. Japan also received the southern half of the Island of Sakhalin from Russia. Although Japan gained a great deal from the treaty, it was not nearly as much as the Japanese public had been led to expect, since Japan's initial negotiating position had demanded all of Sakhalin and a monetary indemnity as well.

The aftermath of the treaty was different for the three major players in helping bring the war to an end.  The United States achieved what it wanted; neither Russia or Japan were entirely strong enough to control the region and they were able to continue their Pacific advance with little to slow them down. 

The Russian government suffered a severe fate after the Treaty of Portsmouth.  The Russian government was never able to rebound from the defeat in the Russo – Japanese and limped on for the next several years.  The Russian people felt betrayed by their government and within 15 years a small revolution movement would overthrow the ruling Tsarist regime. 

The Japanese people on the other hand were not exactly pleased with the result of the war either.  The Japanese people saw where they had achieved massive military victories but attained very little and taxes were even raised by the government to help offset the costs of the war.  Revolts were held in Japan as well as Russia, the main difference between the two revolts is that the Japanese revolts accomplished reform to the government as where the Russian revolution’s goal was a complete overhaul of the system. 

In the 80 plus years of US / Japanese relations that occurred before World War II, the time that Theodore Roosevelt was in office was the most successful and the most peaceful.  Although tensions during this era were not completely void, Roosevelt did an excellent job in trying to keep minor incidents from snowballing into major issues.    

Racial Tensions Grow in the United States

           

Although under Theodor Roosevelt the US maintained decent relations with Japan, this was also an era of growing racial tensions in the United States with Japanese immigrants.  Roosevelt himself was not innocent of being a racist as well as many Americans in this time frame of American history.  President Theodore Roosevelt declared, "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages" and openly spoke of cementing the rule of "dominant world races.”(1)  In line with the concepts of the "Manifest Destiny" of white Anglo-Americans to conquer lands inhabited by "inferior" races of Native Americans and Mexicans, and the "White Man's Burden" of Europeans' obligation to introduce civilization to the "primitive" people of Africa, Asia and the Pacific, American foreign policy in the early 20th century had racial overtones of a "superior" race destined to rule the world.  The Japanese were just as guilty of being racist but there were a small number of whites in Japan as opposed to a seemingly larger amount of Japanese on the western coast of America. 

           

In the Pacific States, racism was primarily directed against the resident Asian immigrants. Several immigration laws discriminated against the Asians, and at different points the ethnic Chinese or other groups were banned from entering the United States.  Non-whites were prohibited from testifying against whites, a prohibition extended to the Chinese by People v. Hall.(2)  The Japanese as well as the Chinese were often subject to harder labor on the First Transcontinental Railroad and often performed the more dangerous tasks such as using dynamite to make pathways through the mountains. The San Francisco Vigilance Movement, although ostensibly a response to crime and corruption, also systematically victimized Irish immigrants, and later this was transformed into mob violence against East Asian immigrants.

In the ensuing inquests and trials, all the perpetrators either were acquitted, or received only light punishments for lesser offenses, because the testimony of Asian witnesses was either completely inadmissible, or else considered less credible than that of others. 

Japanese immigrants had been welcomed in California, Oregon, and Washington in the late 19th century. Their perceived hard work, clean habits, and entrepreneurial spirit were welcomed in most west coast communities at this time. However, in time these very traits began to fester with Japanese farm workers engaged in collective labor actions when they felt they were being cheated. Even worse, Japanese laborers quickly moved from contract labor to sharecropping and then to outright purchase of land which made many West Coasters uncomfortable. Japanese businesses, like restaurants, began to compete with white-owned businesses. Some Japanese began to accumulate wealth. One, George Shima, amassed 28,000 acres of land, and was dubbed the "potato king" of California.  Whites were fine with Japanese immigrants as long as they complied with the unspoken cast system; non-white immigrants who wished to be treated as equals were not wanted in this region at this time.

The series of insults began in 1905 with a unanimous resolution by both houses of the California Legislature that asked Congress to limit Japanese immigration. The resolution asserted that Japanese laborers "by reason of race habits… are undesirable," that the Japanese added nothing to the prosperity of the state, and that:

“Now not less than five hundred [Japanese] each month [are] landed at the port of San Francisco [and] we cannot but regard with the greatest sense of danger and disaster, the prospect that the close of the war between Japan and Russia will surely bring to our shores hordes, to be counted only in thousands, of the discharged soldiers of the Japanese Army, who will crowd the State with immoral, intemperate, quarrelsome men, bound to labor for a pittance, and to subsist on a supply with which a white man can hardly sustain life.”(4)

           

These conditions of segregation and legislation continued up into the outbreak of World War II and a case could be made that these actions made the creation of Internment Camps for Japanese American citizens during World War II even more realistic because the hatred was already there.  

World War I:  Japanese Expansion in the Far East

           

The era leading up to and during World War I was an interesting era in this relationship.  Leading into the war many believed that Japan and the United States would be at war within a couple years; by the end of World War I tensions had subsided slightly because of attentions being averted to Europe and the fights there and in Russia.  Japan was able to fly under the radar during World War I and when the war ended and the smoke had cleared, only one regional power was standing in the Far East and that was Japan.

           

Leading into US involvement in World War I there was a great deal on tension between the United States and Japan.  One of the m any things that drew the United States into war was the Zimmerman Note.  The Zimmerman Note was a 1917 diplomatic proposal from the German Empire to Mexico to make war against the United States.  The proposal was declined by Mexico, due to a Civil War in the country, but angered Americans and led in part to a U.S. declaration of war in April.  The reason the Zimmerman Note is relevant is because it called for a Japanese / Mexican alliance to attack the United States.  The Japanese were already establishing ties with Mexico for different reasons but with the note coming to light this just made the US even more nervous about the Mexican government as well as the Japanese government.  In the end the Japanese nor the Mexican government decided not to attack not because of an alliance with the United States but rather it would be counterproductive towards their long term goals.       

Japan inevitably entered into World War I on the side of the Entente Powers; with a bequest from the British, the Japanese helped secure shipping lanes in the Pacific from the German navy.  Japan had several reasons for intervening in World War I on the side of the English.  Japan knew that befriending one of the “white nations” was in their best interest.  World War I came out these alliances and Japan thirsted for being a world power and they would not be able to accomplish this without befriending a Western nation.

           

Japan also wanted to take advantage of some of its weaker neighbors and territory that they may be able to acquire while western powers were occupied in Europe with World War I.  Parts of China, Manchuria, and many German colonies fell under Japanese control after World War I and this was the result of them coming in on the right side on the right time.     

In Closing

           

From the end of World War I up until the start of World War II Japan became more militaristic in its leaders.  Japanese progressives were pushed out of the government in place of the conservative imperialistic elements.  The United States in this same time frame was slowly gearing up for war economically.  Manufacturing was still a big part of the American economy at this time and production of munitions made the United States a lot of money during the First World War.  This very manufacturing of munitions would make the United States a key element in the ally victory of the Second World War and helped fuel the Cold War between Soviet Russia and the United States afterwards. 

           

When looking at Japanese / US relations in this time frame I have fault finding blame with just one side.  Both nations were pretentious and wanted the same land.  It was like to children fighting over a toy, eventually these imperial toddlers would throw down and they did that very thing in World War II.        

Works Citied

1.      Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. Boston: South End, 1993.

Print.

2.      "People v. Hall 4 Cal. 399 (California Supreme Court 1854)." UC Hastings College

of the Law. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. <http://www.uchastings.edu/racism-race/people-hall.html>.

3.      Corson-Finnerty, Adam. "Japan-US Relations Before WWII." Musings of Mine.

25 Nov. 2006. Web. <http://musingsofcorsonf.blogspot.com/2006/11/japan-us-relations-before-wwii.html>.

4.      Corson-Finnerty, Adam. "Japan-US Relations Before WWII." Musings of Mine.

25 Nov. 2006. Web. <http://musingsofcorsonf.blogspot.com/2006/11/japan-us-relations-before-wwii.html>.