WAR-TORN CHINA

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 66, 10 December 1938, Page 17

WAR-TORN CHINA

Foreign Rights PERPLEX IN G PROBLEMS How far can normal foreign rights in China be upheld in the lace of the undeclared Siuo-Japaue.se war? What, if any, consideration should be given to the fact that, regardless of the absence of a formal declaration of war, hostilities of an intensive character are in progress? How far is it desirable to go in holding Japan responsible for loss of foreign lives and damage to foreign property arising out of the conduct o.f military operations? These have been [>erplexing problems for the American State Department and the British Foreign Office ever since the war began, says William 11. Chamberlain in the “'Christian Science Monitor” The list of complaints of violation of foreign rights is a long one, and is capable of further extension so long as foreign individuals and foreign property remain within range of artillery and airplanes. The two most spectacular “incidents” were "he sinking of the Panay and the machinegunning of the former British Ambassador to China, Sir Hughe Montgomery Knatchbull-Hugessen. A recent lesser incident was the forcing down and machine-gunning of a Chinese mail airplane, with the loss of life of most of the passengers, the American pilot escaping. Less emotionally exciting, but more frequent and persist (“nt have been cases of looting and destruction of foreign property after the capture of some Chinese city (Nanking, perhaps, afforded the greatest number of examples), of slaps and other insults offered to foreigners by bardboiied Japanese sentries, of refusal of permission to foreigners to return to places of residence which they abandoned. There are also questions of economic diseriinhvation, of favours shown to Japanese goods and Japanese ships as a result- of Japanese military occupation, of currency manipulation calculated to advance Japanese interests. It is not surprising that on this question of the respect due to foreign rights the Japanese and foreign viewpoints should be wide apart, despite the fact that matters have not. yet come to a downright clash- The Japanese position is that, whatever may lie the de jure situation, a de factor war is in progress and that foreigners can best assure their own safety by staying out of zones where bullets are flying. Two Viewpoints. They contend that foreign accidental casualties have been few, largely thanks to their own self-restraint in making every effort to avoid injury to foreign lives and property, that compensation has been paid in some cases when damage claims have been presented through diplomatic channels, that -there is no intention deliberately to infringe on foreign rights and interests. They cite with satisfaction the decision of a United States court rejecting the claims of foreigners who applied for compensation as a result of damage allegedly sustained by au American bombardment of a Niearagtuan port in the course of some undeclared American punitive expendition in Central America.

The foreign viewpoint, is quite different. There is an impulse to stand stiffly on the basis of treaty rights in China, and this impulse is all the stronger because of general disapproval of Japan’s war in China and of the methods by which it has been carried on.

It obviously makes a good deal of difference whether technical rights are asserted with a “chip on the shoulder” attitude. To take an extreme ca.se, suppose a British or American gunboat should sail directly across the Japanese lines of fire in the course of an operation ou the Yangtze River. Technically, the gumboat would be within its theoretical rights; small foreign war vessels have been sailing up and down Chinese rivers for decades. In all probability, of course, the gunboat would be sunk, with all the inflammatory effect on public opinion which this would entail. While it is most unlikely that any such flagrant risk would be taken, questions inevitably arise from time to time which are more dr less likely to turn into “incidents,” depending on whether ill will or approximate understanding prevails between the foreign and Japanese military and naval representatives on the spot. Perhaps the most unsatisfactory feature of the present situation is that so much is left to the operations of blind chance. There is an unhealthy veering of public opinion between comparative apathy on Ear Eastern questions and sudden fits of excitement, induced by sensational headlines when some “incident” occurs. | Economic Reprisals. Whatever may be the course of events in the Far East, a drift toward war without clear-cut reasons and objectives is undesirable. A well-known writer on Far Eastern affairs recently suggested iu a magazine article that America should go over to a policy of economic reprisals, shutting off the supply of some essential commodity to Japan whenever Japan violates some American right. It is doubtful whether this particular policy would conduce, in the long run, to’ the maintenance of peace. Reprisals would become mutual and would become sharper, and it is very improbable that the Japanese Army would back down under pressure of this kind. But, whatever may be thought of the advisability of this suggestion, peace should not be left at the mercy of casual incidents which often loom itmucles -anger in the excitement of much larger iu the excitement of sensational and often exaggerated reports than they do in the perspective of succeeding weeks and months.