Was the “Open Door Policy” of 1900 - 1910 Beneficial to China?

U.S. Interests Come First, then Worry about Europe and China Last

opendoorcartoon
Rogers, Williams. A Fair Field and No Favor. Political Cartoon. 18 Nov 1899. HarpWeek: Cartoon of the Day.
                                                                                   <http://www.harpweek.com/Images/SourceImages/CartoonOfTheDay/November/111899m.jpg>.

    The “open door policy” as a concept may sound like a good idea for a supporter of a global economy, however when it was first enforced by the United States in terms of China, the policy was gilded (McCormick). This is because the purpose of the policy in itself was primarily out of benefiting U.S. interest. If one were to recall the background history leading up to the imposing of the open door policy, the U.S. had just acquired the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, planting them 400 miles away from China, and one step closer to gaining access to their market (Boxer). Because there were already existing spheres of influence in China - primarily belonging to Britain and Japan as a result of the Sino-Japanese War and previous imperialism, the United States also wanted to have its own sphere of influence in China (Tignor 314). The U.S., specifically John Hay - author of the open door notes and “open door policy” - decided a diplomatic agreement would be best rather than using force against China not out of concern for them, but simply because it would not be agreeable with the U.S. citizens after having just ended a war with the Spanish previously (Boxer).
    Frederick McCormick puts America’s aims plain and simple, “…America in the interest first of her present trade and future commerce and peace, and second in the interest of China and all the Powers equally” (McCormick). America’s goal was to gain access to the Chinese markets and split up the previous spheres of influence in such a manner that all powers would have equal access to the Chinese market, “equal opportunity could not be even roughly approximated so long as an era of special privilege was perpetuated  by  the existence of spheres” (Clyde). These goals were plainly represented in the open door notes that were passed around among the powers involved in China’s spheres: "…the desirability of the adoption of measures insuring the benefits of equality of treatment of all foreign trade throughout China are so similar to those entertained by the United States, that their acceptance of the propositions herein outlined and their cooperation in advocating their adoption by the other powers can be confidently expected" (First). This note was passed between the U.S. to Great Britain and Japan to ensure that while U.S. interests were in mind, it was also beneficial to them to agree to the policy because they will have equal influence as all other powers involved.
    Toward the ending of the Boxer Rebellion, John Hay had sent around another open door note in 1900 to update the policy indicating that no power should interfere with the “territorial and administrative integrity” of China (Secretary). Seeing that the note had been passed around after facing the consequences of previously having meddled in territorial and administrative affairs with the consequence of the Boxer rebellion, it simply became U.S. interest to enforce this new rule. One can deduce that this tweak to the policy would not only protect U.S. overseas citizens, diplomats, and missionaries in China but would also prevent other powers from trying to take control of the government by territorial and administrative means. With the United States playing such a huge role in these foreign affairs, they were “actively participating in exercising treaty rights which did materially affect Chinese sovereignty” (Clyde). Let it be stressed, again, that this was mainly out of U.S. interests first, and then China’s last.
    The open door policy was a “…policy expressive of national ambition and protective of American interests, actual and potential... For [getting] an economic advantage at the expense of a weak China” (Answers.com). It was an excuse for America to look as if it were upholding “international morality” as China was rebelling against foreign influence during the Boxer Rebellion while through pushing the idea of equality in the spheres of influence they were gaining access to a market where they had “little political clout” in (Answers.com). America had many agricultural and industrial interests in China’s economy that made it so worth being a player in its economy. Essentially America was seeking “outlets for American grain and cotton manufactured goods” while China needed “…railroad equipment and oil products” to fuel America‘s industrialization (Answers.com). This made China seem like the perfect candidate for a potential American interest, indicating evidence supporting that the U.S. enforced the open door policy for potential economic opportunities and self-interest.
    The open door policy seemed to be perfect in every way for the United States, in that it covered up the U.S.’ true intentions of pursuing self-interest at China’s expense, but rather portrayed it as a moralistic player in the global economy. The policy also created U.S. potential economic opportunities with China’s market that America had been willing to kill to get its hands on, while at the same time keeping other powers at bay from snatching China from underneath them. However as would soon be realized, the policy had many problems with it that ended up ruining China’s nation even more once loopholes had been found and violations of the treaty had occurred.