Comparison and Contrast: Letters

Introduction

The British government was experiencing high trade deficits with China, which was occasioned by a low demand for her products in the Chinese market. Attempts to find a solution to accessing Chinese market ended in failure, even after several attempts. To reduce the deficits, the British government resorted to exporting opium to China. Commissioner Lin Zexu’s, was sent by the emperor to suppress the illegal opium trade. However, in execution of his mandate, he applied the law unequally. Foreigners were brutally mistreated and even threatened with the death penalty. The standoff led to an exchange between the queen of England and Commissioner Lin Zexu’s. Comparison and Contrast: Letters

Lin Zexu wrote a letter to the Queen of England explaining to her the progress of his country and its international relations with the British Empire. He first explains the history of this relationship between the two countries and later on outlines; how his emperor was committed to protecting the interest of all nations and honoring his country’s loyalty to the Queen. This letter raises concerns of earlier reports, which pointed out incidences where investors from Britain were highly treated with respect, human dignity, kindness, and justice. After describing how the commercial relationship had been between the two countries, he goes further to the extent of explaining the negative side of this relationship (Commissioner Lin Zexu’s, 1840). He argues that foreign traders had been at the forefront in poisoning and harming the Chinese people. Likewise, the writer talks about the introduction of opium by the foreign traders, which had imposed negative health impacts to the health of the people in the emperor. He further writes about an incidence, which led to the criminalization of opium smoking due to its harmful side effects on both the smokers and other people affected by the emitted smoke.

The king was greatly irritated by this upcoming dangerous habit whereby he issued a degree that anyone who could be found smoking it would be exterminated for wanting to endanger his/her life or even the life of others. Likewise, the same death penalty was to be passed to foreigners who would be caught trading with this dangerous product. Furthermore, he highlights how the product had caused numerous complications to his fellow citizens the people of the land where most cases of the drug users becoming unproductive to the society. The commissioner justified the action by the emperor by arguing that his government had a legal mandate to protect the rights, lives, and the Chinese welfare at whatever cost even if it meant going into war with other s foreign powers.

This letter seeks the intervention of the Queen to help fight against foreigners involved in the opium trade. The commissioner’s main concern is the fact these foreigners had declined the decree to stop this kind of trade where he now seeks the help of the British government in abolishing the trade. He highlights the importance of respecting the Chinese laws and carrying out their trading activities within the set rules and regulations that do not put other people’s lives into danger. He therefore makes effort to win the favor of the Queen using the letter. He argues that it would be unfair for any trader to conduct any business with an aim of making profit while the customer’s health on the other side is being endangered. He also suggests that it would be wrong for Chinese traders to sell destructive products in Britain, as it is the case with foreigners. Therefore, he urges the Queen to enforce the law and moral lessons to help the Chinese emperor fight the hazard.

The second dispatch which by the foreign affairs Secretary is more of a response to the earlier one by the Lin Zexu. The secretary informs Lin Zexu that the Queen had sent the GB military and navy forces to the Chinese coast. This followed demands from the emperor concerning the state of affairs at this coast and try to address the issue of security in the region. The writer explains the kind of relationship that had formerly existed between China and British citizens over a long time. In addition, a previous agreement signed between the two nations is referred to, which was to ensure that the Chinese authorities would ensure safety of the Britons (Lord Palmerston, 1840). It further explains that the British government had learnt that the Chinese authorities were dishonoring part of the agreement thereby forcing the Queen to enforce military action to protect the interests of her subjects. The message gives the reason that had forced the Queen to take military action against the Chinese authority. The letter points out that it was unfair for the law of the land to be applied to a certain group of people while on the other hand people violated the same law. The Queen had been irritated by the act of the Chinese authorities to subject the British residents to the laws of their nation regarding opium trade while the authorities had been engaged in the trading for a long time without any legal action being taken against them. Therefore, the British government had to take a step in protecting its citizens from any form of torture or unfair treatment. In addition, the letter gave conditions to the Chinese authorities on what they needed to do for the British government for it to withdraw its forces from the Chinese territory.

The commissioner, in this dispatch sounds more convincing than the foreign secretary does. Both letters suggested that the health of the Chinese people and the British were of great importance. Consequently, the secretary’s argument to justify a military intervention as a solution is not reasonable. The reason is that the letter does not cognizance of the fact that the two countries can benefits form each other. The Queen is more concerned about the business interest of the people of Britain and applies force to ensure that their interests are protected without taking into consideration the welfare of the Chinese people. The argument is morally unjustifiable because it only looks at only a single side of the coin, but it fails to take into account the implications of the harmful trade of opium. This is because the opium trade had numerous negative impacts on the lives of the Chinese. There is a reason to believe that the foreigners accelerated the trade by introducing many people to the usage of the drug. The commissioner’s argument is not one sided, given that he also accepts that his authorities had been involved in the trade of opium. In addition, the country’s current account was experiencing a shortage of silver, which was occasioned by the opium trade. However, such predicament could not necessitate an arrogant response.

The Commissioner’s correspondence entirely blames the foreigners for bringing the opium to China (Commissioner Lin Zexu’s, 1840). Although he used combination of tactics to appeal to the foreigners, his letter goes to the extreme by indicating that China could annihilate them. This somehow concealed threat is uncalled for and did not show respect for the Queen and her people. In addition, the letter fails to fails to give factual evidence on the case under review. The writer blames the foreigners for introducing the opium while he well knew that a few government officials had introduced the opium. These government officials had been the beneficiaries of the trade and they were now concerned about the emerging competition from these foreigners. Therefore, the author of the letter should not have used untrustworthy information to blame the foreigners without substantial evidence. In addition, the commissioner should have tried to reason with the British authorities in a cordial manner. The British government was trying to bridge a gap in the foreign trade with China, which resulted in the exportation of opium to China. Opium was not a condemned drug in Britain, and high-ranking official often used it for various reasons (Spence, 1999). For the commissioner to use harsh words and threats was disrespectful and not well thought. Although in some instances, the commissioner seemed reasonable by trying to appeal to the Queen of England to resolve the issue; subsequent opium war proved that his message had a negative impact on the Queen. The altercations could have been fueled by the cultural orientations of the two countries. British people see Chinese culture as backward and this could have played a critical role in the commissioners’ response (Mungello, 2009).)

The foreign secretary’s letter is likely to convince the reader because of its content as opposed to that of the commissioner. Moreover, the language used in this document is more convincing in nature unlike the language used in the other message. Words that support the case of the author have been used in these writing. The secretary justifies the action of the Queen by portraying the negative picture of the Chinese authority (Commissioner Lin Zexu’s, 1840). On the other hand, the first one fails on this by using words that are not emotionally touching to argue his case with the Queen. After reading the two letters, the one by the secretary can easily convince the reader to support the action taken by the Queen. The author puts forward a critical argument unlike Lin Zexu who does not use the necessary skills required to convince the targeted recipient.

The Secretary’s letter uses logos and ethos that make it strong and attractive for the reader to understand the content. In addition, He uses evidence and reasoning to support his case. These elements make its content of the reasonable and easy to stand out when compared with the other one. On the other hand, the commissioner’s does not incorporate logos and ethos making it plain and less convincing in its nature. The action taken by the Queen to protect those engaged in trade of illegal drugs is morally wrong but the argument justifies it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the secretary’s communiqué involves various elements of speech in its content that make it more convincing to the reader. On the other hand, the other letter is not precise enough and to some extent, it is derogatory. Commissioner Lin Zexu uses threats instead of diplomatic language to resolve the conflict. It would have been better if it had provided ways of resolving the conflict, which is a critical role of the foreign relations docket.

References

Commissioner Lin Zexu’s, (1840). “Letter to the Queen of England, from the [Chinese] High Imperial Commissioner Lin Zexu, and His Colleagues,” [Reprinted from the Chinese Repository, Vol. 8, Issue 10, pp. 497-503

Lord Palmerston, (1840). “Dispatch from Lord Palmerston to the Ministers of the Emperor of China”. [Reprinted from the Chinese Repository, Vol. 8, Issue 10, pp. 497-503

Mungello, D.E. (2009).The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Spence, J. (1999). The Search for Modern China, 2nd Edition, London: W. W. Norton.