1927년 하이퐁(Hải Phòng) 화교 배척 사건의 발단, 전개, 대응의 제 양상 - 자료 《民國十六年 八一七越南海防慘殺華僑案紀》를 중심으로 -

Abstract

This article is to review Anti-Chinese riots of Haiphong(ACRH) with a ‘Min-Guo Shi-liu-Nian Ba-yi-qi Yue-nan Hai-phang Can-sha Hua-qiao An-ji’[民國十六年 八一七越南海防慘殺華僑案紀] which was published by Guangzhou Office of Chinese Kuomintang’s Central Committee in 1928. The results of these review are as follows. Firstly, ACRH began from a quarrel between a Chinese lady and a Vietnamese lady at a city water fountain near the Haiphong Chinatown in August 17, 1927. The quarrel spread to two people’s local residents, neighbors, and passers-by. Overseas Chinese community in Haiphong and Nanking Nationalist Government argued that French Colonial Government of Indochina(FCGI) hesitated to calm down the dispute early not to get worse matters. whereas FCGI did not agree. In addition, Overseas Chinese community in Haiphong regarded ACRH as a Vietnamese unilateral violence on Chinese, while FCGI viewed ACRH as damages caused by clashes between Vietnamese and Chinese. According to the Chinese material, 12 Chinese were killed and 88 were injured, whereas FCGI identified 15 dead and 60 wounded, One of deaths was Vietnamese. We can guess that ACRH was developed as a unilateral violence by Vietnamese from a point of view to consider the degree of damage comprehensively. In particular, it is proved that 100 Chinese who owned shops and houses were looted and suffered massive property losses on August 20th in Haiphong Chinatown. Secondly, Vietnamese perceived Chinese as unwelcome as they were economically superior to Vietnamese and only took care of their own interests. This was another cause. FCGI is wary that the economic power of overseas Chinese will threaten French capital and Chinese government and they will influence Vietnamese independence activities. Prior to the outbreak of ACRH, Vietnamese political groups and business circles were carrying out a campaign called the “Chinese Product Exclusion Movement” against the strong economic activities of overseas Chinese. Thirdly, the Nanking Nationalist Government tried to resolve ACRH diplomatically through the French Consulate in Guangzhou. Apart from this trial, Cantong and Guangxi provincial government also requested Chinese protection toward Chinese central government and the French Consulate with Cantong and Guangxi branch of Chinese Kuomintang. However, these diplomatic attempts ended in failure as FCGI perceived to handle the incident properly and suppress it well. Fourthly, the Haiphong Branch of Chinese Kuomintang played a great role to carry out Chinese protection against Vietnamese riots, investigate the victims, and release the Chinese from detention. However, Cantonese and Fukienese congregations were not able to get actively involve resolving ACRH as the congregations was a subordinate of FCGI. Vietnamese political groups appealed the solidarity between Vietnamese and Chinese not to influence the cooperation from Chinese government and the Chinese Kuomintang with ACRH.