Problem Of The Status Of Korea And Manchuria

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1945, Page 4

Problem Of The Status Of Korea And Manchuria

By MARC T. GREENE

CVER since the reign of Czar Alex-'-J ander 11. Russian imperialism has concerned itself closely with the Far East. Romanoff policy was preoccupied with what the late American Senator Albert J. Beveridge, in a book on the subject that attracted much attention forty years ago, called the "Russian Advance."_ And there has been no reorientation of that policy whatsoever under Lenin or Stalin. Thus there is posed yet another past-war problem, in the question of the exact future status of Korea and Manchuria.

The general view of the position, that is to say, among th small minority which gives any thought to these things, is, "why, that's simple enough. Korea and Manchuria must go back to China." Nothing could be farther from the facts. Far from being simple, the question of the political status of these two regions is likely to be one of the most difficult of all to settle. That is because Soviet Russia takes exactly the same position in respect of the Far East that Czarist Russia took, the necessity of building up and maintaining a strong East Asia bastion, with a year-round ice-free port on the Pacific. Such a port can hardly be any other than Dairen, or Dalny, as the Russians used to call it, Pacific terminus of the South Manchuria railway linking up with the Chinese Far Eastern and so with the Transiberian. Vital to Existence The Russo-Japanese» War was fought over the question of Manchuria. Both nations considered its possession essential to their status as a world Power. The Japanese felt that possession vital to their very existence. "Manchuria is our lifeline on the Asiatic Continent," proclaimed the Imperial Japanese Government prior to the occupation of the country in 1932. "We must take and hold it at all. costs."

Talking with Cabinet Minister Shiratori, later Japanese Ambassador to the court of Mussolini, whom he "greatly admired," in October, 1932, this correspondent listened with some restiveness to the following from the truculent Japanese diplomat: "Your country and England have been trying for years to strangle us politically and economically. Now our back is against the wall, We propose to hold Manchui'ia, also the Pacific Mandated Islands, League or no League, and let the world take notice. We have set for ourselves a course of action that we are going to follow, whatever happens. And if we have to fight for our lives, for our national existence, as well may happen, be sure that if we do go down it will be at a cost that will, as your old enemy, Kruger, of South Africa said, stagger humanity." Prophetic words. The cost is indeed staggering humanity and holds out every prospect of staggering it still more, before the Asiatic war is won. However, Japan and Russia fought at the turn of the century over Manchuria and Japan worn Or at least, Theodore Roosevelt did the Japanese the favour of stopping the combat while they were ahead, and of pleasing them still further by recommending what he called a "Japanese Monroe Doctrine for the Far East."

But the Powers would hot permit the victors to keep their spoils. All they were left of those was the "Leased Territory," that is, the strip along the South Manchuria railway

that the Russians had "leased" from the Chinese some years before, after the Chinese Eastern line was constructed, the port of Dalny and Port Arthur. ' Nor did the Japanese ever forgive or forget this. It can accurately be termed one of the more remote causes of the present war. Then, in 1932, occurred the "Manchuria Incident." ; Japan was, from her point of view, protecting what she called her "lifeline." Against whom? Why, against the old enemy, Russia, of course, a new and stronger. Rujsia , which might be expected to resume the Tsarist "advance" with far more power and determination. The Japanese felt, and, as must be admitted, not without cause, that a Soviet Russia in control of Manchuria, either directly or indirectly, would be very unhealthy for them.

"The Bear Stands Poised" And, speaking of indirect control, contemplate the position in Korea under Korean "independence. The Court at Seoul was a hotbed of Russian intrigue. Everything was under the influence of Russian "advisors. The bear was there in all his strength. As a Japanese statesman of that era said, "The Russian bears stands on his hind legs in East Asia and his forelegs are poised to descend upon us." , . The Japanese, by degrees and in diverse ways, "took over" in Korea. They have now lost it and Manchuria finally and definitely. Now the question arises: Is each country to be returned to China? Soviet Russia definitely does not hold the view. There is already talk of "Protectorates," as to both Manchuria and Korea. Such talk greatly excites the Chinese, also symr pathisers with the Chinese, especially in America where they are exceedingly numerous and very influential. Is China after all she has endured both for her sake and for ours, to be "sold down the river, an American idiom carrying the ! suggestion *of betrayal? Furthermore, the Koreans, having been unhappy under Japanese rule, have formed "independence societies all over the place, and threaten to fight all and sundry if- they are not granted immediate political freedom. Few realists who know the Koreans can envisage them as fully fitted at present for complete independence. The Russians used them more or le&s successfully as a bufferState against Japan, and then Japan made similar use of them as a bufferState against Russia. That was rather rough on the Koreans and did little toward developing in them a capacity for full self-government. A reasonable measure of autonomy for them under some sort of mandate from ffee new security organisation would seem a temporary expedient. But certainly no nation, East or West, should be permitted to dominate entirely this long-harassed little country.