THE PUPPET STATE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 29, 29 October 1934, Page 8

THE PUPPET STATE

Treaty obligations have once again been raised in the Fa® East by the decision of the Government of Manchukuo to make petroleum a State monopoly. Behind the announcement is no doubt the power behind the throne of that puppet State, the Japanese Government. Japan, as is well known, is anxious to have security for the oil supplies, of which she herself has practically none. The proposed monopoly is in effect a breach of the Washington Nine-Power Trea.j, to which both Japan and China are signatories Furthermore, it is to be financed largely by Japanese capital. The fact that none of t Powers —except Japan—have officially recognised the independenc of Manchukuo, the creation of which affected the territorial integrity of China and therefore constituted .a very serious breach oi the same Treaty, has been used by the Japanese Government as a pretext tor evading the present issue. , • ’ v According to a statement by the Foreign Spokesman at Tokio the Powers protesting against the oil monopoly should address their complaints to China, as the sovereign authority, from their point of view, of Manchukuo. Thus does Japan, with tongue in cheek pursue her policy, of political aggrandisement in the Far East. With Manchukuo as her marionette she has pulled the strings to her advantag in various directions. Japanese capital financed the purchase by the puppet State of the Chinese Eastern Railway, thus strengthening the frontier of the Japanese sphere of influence against Russia. Now comes the oil monopoly, a move obviously directed by Japan for her own purposes. These events, considered in conjunction with her withdrawal from the League of Nations, her declaration of Monroeism in the Far East, and her unmistakable intention of abrogating the Naval Treaty, indicate that she intends to go from strength to strength unless her policy of expansion in-defiance of treaty obligations receives a salutary check. But who is to check it? There is no single Power at present disposed to take action in defence of Chinese interests, and no apparen. possibility of any unanimity of purpose by any group of I owers associated by treaty to safeguard these interests. Time after time they have neglected the opportunity to make a stand in defence oi the law of nations and the sanctity of treaties, and with each defection China has been weakened while Japan has been strengthened. Suppose that China, as, the lawful owner of Manchukuo, her ownership guaranteed by the Nine-Power Treaty, according to the Japanese sneer, wete to protest against the oil monopoly as an infraction by one of her own provinces of the “open door” principle of trade which she herself has affirmed, how much would that protest avail herohe could n. back up her protest, and, if -history is any criterion, there is no evidence that the Powers, or any one of them, would come to liei assistance. As the oil monopoly will react upon powerful financial interests in other countries, there may, however, be a different stoiy to tell. -