America and the Far East

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22251, 16 November 1937, Page 8

America and the Far East

A significant message from Washington printed in the cable news this morning indicates very plainly that the Roosevelt Administration does not propose lo take the initiative in any international attempt to restrain Japan. The reasons given are that Great Britain lias a much larger financial stake in the Far East than America has, that Japan's goodwill is an important factor in American trade, and that the episode in 1931, when Sir John Simon failed to support the Administration in its desire to restrain Japanese aggression in Manchuria, "' lias left a bitter taste in the mouth of prac- " ticaliy every American statesman.'' All these reasons no doubt have their' influence on American policy; but the implication that the weakening in the Administration's attitude to Japan is due mainly to a distrust of Great Britain is unfair. At the present time American foreign policy must be interpreted in the light of the internal political situation. It is now becoming apparent that Mr Roosevelt's Chicago speech, in which he called for " a concerted effort" by "the peace-loving nations" in opposition to " those violations of treaties and those ignor- " ings of humane instincts which to-day are " creating a stale of international anarchy and " instability from which there is no escape " through mere isolation or neutrality " was only one incident in the Administration's long struggle with Congress over the neutrality question. When it passed the Neutrality Act. Congress emphatically rejected a request by the President for the insertion of clauses empowering him to name the .tggressor in any conflict anil to apply discriminatory embargoes against an aggressor. The President's Chicago speech, and the subsequent declaration by the State Department that Japan is an aggressor, which the President must have sanctioned, amount to a deliberate challenge to the authority of Congress. And it is apparent that, when Congress meets again, the challenge will be taken up by the powerful isolationist group led by Senator Nye of North Dakota; there has even been some talk of impeaching the President for an unconstitutional action. The truth is. as the " New York Times " points out, that there are two American foreign policies, one sponsored by the President and the other by Congress, and that the two are "deeply and fundament"ally irreconcilable.'' Mr Roosevelt may still believe that his Chicago speech embodies a realistic view of the possibilities of isolation; but it is clear that the strength of the opposition aroused by that speech has already compelled him to make a strategic retreat. It ; s convenient, but not very honest, to excuse the retreat with the plea that the real responsibility in the Far East is Great Britain's and that in any case Great Britain is not to be trusted.