JAPAN'S FUTURE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 45, 22 February 1934, Page 16

JAPAN'S FUTURE.

" LOT OF WAR TALK." CONFLICT CAN BE OBVIATED. TRADING- ARRANGEMENTS. "There has been a lot of talk in the world with regard to Japan and war. I do not think there is a chance of Japan going to war if other peoples in tho world will give her a chance to raise her standard of living," said Mr. Walter Nash, M.P., in an address to tho Palmerston North Rotary Club. Drawing on his experiences as a delegate to tho Institute of Pacific relatione (held at Banff last year, when many notable Japanese attended) and also on an extensive study of the question, Mr. Nash was able to throw much light on the achievements and 1 ambitions of Japan. "You cannot permanently keep a nation of equal vision, character, capacity and intelligence with other peoples on a lower level," he said. "Accepting that, it means that tho Japanese, who in these respects are the equal of any people in the world, are entitled to all they can get, provided others are also getting it. If tho British standard of living is higher than that of tho Japanese, then the latter have a right to look up to that higher level and expect it ultimately for themselves. You cannot deprive them of it." After summarising Japan's population problem and her wonderful advance in commerce, Mr. Nasli said that in 1929 her standard of living, compared with that of. a generation before, had improved by CO per cent, although even then it compared with the standard obtaining in Great Britain only in the ratio of 60:100. "Blocked on Every Hand." How then was Japan going to raise her standard of living? The alternative methods were by migration or by consolidation and expansion of her industries. While not essentially a colonising or migrating people, the Japanese had in the past made some efforts in that direction, notably to California, Hawaii and British Columbia. But the adjacent whites realised the potent danger of living in proximity to an industrious community with a far lower standard of living, and the outcome was the exclusive immigration laws, under which, in the U.S.A. the quotas allowed to other nationals were denied to the Japanese. A similar position was seen in the White Australia policy and the hardly less rigorous laws of New Zealand. Tho Japanese had simply been denied right of entry to these countries.

Thus rebuffed, they turned in the ' direction of absorbing all their labour power in industry, hoping to establish j largo exports whereby to obtain credits , that would furnish the purchasing , power requisite to command those commodities, foodstuffs and raw materials ] essential to Japan's new economic life. ; But in reply she was greeted with a barrage of tariff barriers all round the i world. This had the tendency to deny ; their second approach to raising the standard of living. Their next action was that of entering Manchuria, and whether or not her methods of obtaining possession had met with approval her case for possession was undoubtedly strong. Her own soil, at the utmost limit of production, was insufficient to raise the standard permanently. Japan had been opposed in her two efforts at self-improvement: what then could she do? Her. people were blocked on every hand. Contrast of U.S.A. The Japanese position was in strong contrast to that of the U.S.A., who now aimed, to put 30,000,000 acres of good land into zompulsory idleness. Thia amount, it was contemplated, might be increased to 100,000,000 acres. What, Mr. Nash asked, would be our attitude as Britishers if we found ourselves similarly confronted? Would we stand calmly by and see prosperous acres forced into idleness? Mr. Nasli said he, personally, apart from the Christian ethics of the problem, could not from experience 'advocate 'an unrestricted emigration- of Japanese to other countries.- The repercussions might be too vast. But, if we denied them this right, if we, as stewards, put a barrier round the God-given resources with which we were entrusted) we ourselves, having denied others access, should he prepared to use them and give the fruits of these lands to the Japanese. Proposal for New Zealand. As for the peculiar problem of New Zealand, we should go to the Japanese, and say: "To the extent, that we can use our own country to produce goods that would not otherwise be produced, we will make these commodities available to you, and will take from you in exchange those additional goods your people have brought into being. You will retain the right to say what you will take from us, and we from you." This, said Sir. Nash, was the only mutually beneficial arrangement that either we or Japan could make. It did not mean that Japanese goods were to be unloaded on to this country at devastatingly cheap prices to the disorganisation of existing business, but _ there would be many commodities the importation of which would achieve nought but good for our people. Moreover, there was no better market in the world for the goods we produced than the Pacific. If, after satisfying by agreement the demands of Britain, we sent our surplus goods to Japan, China and other Pacific lands, wo would, be infinitely better off. A Militaristic Group. "If the British people enjoy a fuller life than do the Japanese, we must not deny them the right to participate in it," Mr. Naslx said. "Japan has, like other countries, a militaristic group, a major factor of the people are suffering a real injustice. In 1935 Japan will claim naval parity, the same as wo would, in like circumstances. If any antagonism is offered Japan in Manchukuo, she will fight; but the Japanese people would not be behind the militarists unless they believed they had been denied the right to raise their living standards. _As for Japan endeavouring to stir up strife ■with either Russia or the U.S.A., the militarists will get the people behind them only if they feel there is an injustice, which will be present if they are denied their inalienable right. "You cannot permanently keep people of equal virility and capacity on different levels. Irrespective of what laws i you make you cannot break the divine law of the right of peoples to the fullI ness of life provided their contribution ' to the world is substantial. As you ' cannot deny that to people, much less can you to a nation."