TRADING FENCES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 277, 22 November 1934, Page 15

TRADING FENCES.

AND WORLD MARKETS.

A JAPANESE DENIAL.

TO AGGRESSION CHARGES. (By VISCOUNT ISHII.) (Reprinted, by permission, from l an advance copy of "Contemporary Japan.") TOKYO, October 15. Looking back over the past year, students of international affairs must admit it has been full of dangerous developments, economic, political and international, for the world. Japan has been no exception, for she has had to face acute difficulties in her relations with foreign countries.

In May last year I had an interview with President Roosevelt. Ho told me Japanese goods were making inroads in the American market, and that American producers and merchants were suffering greatly. It ivas not till their that it came to .my knowledge that Japanese trade abroad had developed in such proportions as to cause conccrn in foreign countries.

In Europe I found the outcry against Japanese competition had attained the proportions of a despairing scream. 'I hey all wondered how it was possible that, while all other nations were suffering severely from the depression, Japan could achieve such a high level of exports. They were at a loss how to maintain their own industrial and commercial systems in the face of the Japanese advance. But what substance is there to thie charge of economic aggression by Japan? Last year the relative exports weie roughly 4.5 for Great Britain, 2.3 for the United States and 1 for Japan. Japans exports are still moderately low, compared with those of the two AngloSaxon countries.

Yet, throughout the western hemisphere the loud cry against Japanese competition was heard. These nations "were considering higher tariff walls or other methods to stem the inflow of

Japanese merchandise. The most drastic measure was the quota system, applicable to Japanese goods exclusively. Great Britain, for instance, has now enforced the quota 63'stcm against Japanese merchandise, but she had not made up her - mind - about this drastic and unfriendly measure at the time of the London Economic Conference. Harmful Economic Nationalism. This economic nationalist]) which prevails throughout the world is very harmful, as it acts against the promotion of international- commerce. • Japan - and the United States at first put up_ a joint resistance against this economic trend. Such resistance was one of. the major policies advocated by President Roosevelt, and it remains so to-day. The

Democratic leaders who replaced the Republican Administration under President Hoover criticised the Republican tariff, saying it was too high and that Iheir mission was to lower tariffs. Thus far the United States was determined to assert itself against attempts by other nations to erect- higher tariff walls or enforce other arbitrary restrictive measures. Japan was more eager than America to fight against' trade restrictions.

The American delegation to the Dondon Economic Conference, however, perceiving the dangerous atmosphere developing shortly before the conference decided to adjourn, assumed a more conciliatory attitude. They perceived the necessity of conforming to the. general drift of'the conference, cr»® ott4>

in the end with the suggestion that the United States might consider reciprocal treaties, which, in practice, would mean their retreat before tlio prevailing nationalistic atmosphere of the, conference, for their show of readiness to consider reciprocal treaties meant their acceptance of a stand incompatible with unqualified adhesiorf' to the principle of most favoured nation treatment. Left as Sole Free Trade Champion. This left Japan alone as the champion of free trade, contending single-handed that international trade should be based on fair play ami free competition, and that there should be no preferences, no

high tariff" walls, no quotas. Such was the situation when I came homo from the London economic conference.

There was 110 warrant for calling the advance of Japanese merchandise aggression. Foreign countries found it impossible to compete with Japan 8 industries; her goods were better, the price cheaper. The only thing left for them to do was to interfere with the

entry of Japanese goods into those parts of the .world where they were planted firmly, no matter whether the means they chose to adopt for the purpose were justifiable or not. They closed their doors to Japanese merchandise, they turned tlicir backs 011 the principle of the open door, all the while demanding the open floor to China and charging Japan with having attempted to close it.

The latest examplo of this demand by the Powers for the "freedom" abroad which they deny at home was the furore caused by the statement to the Press by the director of the information bureau of the Tokyo Foreign Office last April. The Foreign Office statement, as I understand it. was to the purport that Japan does not want other Powers to do what tliey object to. Japan doing. The spokesman of the Foreign Office undoubtedly had in mind the possible assistance to China of the League of Nations, without consultation with Japan, in the form of loans and political reconstruction, the latter immediately involving the suply of arms and munitions, aeroplanes, etc. A Counsel of Caution. We are facing a strange situation. All nations except Japan are closing their doors to free trade. Instead of directing tlieir analysis of conduct toward themselves, they keep their eye riveted on Japan and watch lier critically. Students of international affairs in this country are bound to enlighten the world about the real conditions, for sucli conditions offer no justification for the revision of the Japanese stand in this

matter of trade, and whatever concessions are necessary must come from abroad. Japan produces superior articles through the industry of her workers and the scientific of liei experts, and can sell these articles at prices far lower than those demanded by her competitors. There can-be no wrong in this. The only thing possible for Japan to do at this time probably would be to exercise care not to abuse the industrial and economic advantages which are liers to such an extent that they will lower the purchasing power of other nations, as this will bring about a reduction of the sale of Japanese merchandise in the long run. It would not be amiss for Japanese industrialists and merchants to adopt a conciliatory attitude toward other countries in order to readjust the tiado relations with them, but at the same time they must do their utmost for the reinstatement of free trade and the I revival of fair play. —N.A.N.A.