Evening Post. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1921. SIR JOHN FINDLAY AND THE TREATY

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 49, 26 February 1921, Page 4

Evening Post. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1921. SIR JOHN FINDLAY AND THE TREATY

Sir John Findlay has been misreported, but he has taken a long time to find it out. The delay in making the correction is really a more serious matter than the original mistake, and much more difficult to understand. Presumably Sir- John Findlay had not. discovered how serious the mistake »was until public criticism had compelled him to give it more careful attention than he had given it at first. And whatever may have been the actual origin of the blunder, it seems impossible to acquit the writer—or the speaker—of an error in emphasis without which-the gross misstatement attributed to him could not have gained the currency which he has allowed'it to enjoy unchallenged for nearly a fortnight. So far, at any rate, as the people of New Zealand are concerned, tho point to put first is that they fully appreciate the benefits which they a,nd the rest of the King's subjects have derived from tho Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and would be glad to see it renewed if that proves to be reconcilable with the general scheme of the Empire's foreign policy. If Sir John Findlay's statement had opened in this way it would have put the most important thing first, and it would also have been above the possibility of misunderstanding. Not only would such an opening have squared with the facts, but it would have had a great advantage which a plain statement of fact does not always convey in such matters; it would have been diplomatically correct. It is poor diplomacy to give an illogical prominence to points of difference and possible offence. Common sense and common 'politeness agree in presenting the opposite procedure.

It may be that the Anglo-Japanese 'Alliance is the ladder by which Japan has climbed to greatness and security, and that she is now prepared to kick it away. It may be that the -British Empire, having been saved by the Alliance during the great war from a. position in the Pacific which might otherwise have been 'full of peril, ds equally ready to dispense with Hs aid. This is the view taken by Sir John Findlay in his original statement and not modified by his explanation. He declared the renewal of the Treaty with Japan to be " unjustified, since the German.' and Russian menaces have been removed, andl America is ready to make common cause in the went of. a Japanese peril." If this is Sir John Findlay'* personal opinion he is certainly entitled to-express it as such, but insofar "as be implies that it is also the opinion of- New Zealand he speaks without warrant. Despite the lessons of the war, and despite whatever of pride and glamour may attach to their status on the League of^Nations, the people oJ this country have for the most part relapsed into their.former indifference to foreign affairs; but even those of us who have not are -sufficiently aware of our limitations to refrain- from pretending to read the international future with the accuracy which Sir -John Findlay appears to profess.- It is true that the German and Russian menaces have been removed, but that they may not, recur in some new form is unfortunately beyond proof. Even if we could afford to dogmatise on this point, the history of every age and country proclaim the folly of assuming that the laying of some spectre which has long haunted the minds of men ensures against the rise of, some other equally terrible danger in a quite uncap®?!*!! gwwi I In urging .ut to look &o, America for

protection, Sir John Findlay is surely ■speaking rather as one of the .multitude than ob a statesman, yet'this is a point on which "the instinct of the multitude might well prove a safer .guide. Though America has grievously disappointed the world by her emphatic repudiation of the responsibilities which after much hesitation she faced so admirably during the ■war, we are justified in hoping that thiswithdrawal is only temporary, and that she will before long have 'token her front place in the League of Nations, But nobody can tall at present when and to what ejctent this hope will be realised. Not even the wisest of the Americans themselves can answer the question, and J to build upon their good-will as, an effective protection in time of war would be j as foolish as to build upon the League of Nations itself, after the fashion that was more popular eighteen months ago than it is to-day. We need not take too seriously the talk of the American fireeaters who are oat " to whip creation " and are as eager to build ships against Britain as against Japan. Bnt let us at ■least use this sort of talk as au antidote to the vague hopes regarding American policy to which we are asked to trust •the destinies of the Empire.

As w« write, a message comes to hand which reports Sir James Allen's disagree. ■ment vaih. Sir John Findlay's suggestion that a modification of the Japanese Treaty is imminent. "Now Zealand," he adds, " has no quarrel with or fear of Japan, and views the Treaty as an ample safeguard of her good faith." No fault can reasonably be found- with this statement except that, like that of Sir John Findlay reported yesterday, it is Tather late. In emphasising the common ground and not the points of^difference it exactly satisfies the condition for •which we have argued. It is frank and friendly, and it fits the facts. "It would •be idle," says Sir John Findlay in his amended statement; "to object to the Treaty in its present form, under which Japanese immigrants are .exoluded from Australasia.'' How different are the impressions produced respectively by this grudging admission and by the courteous and complimentary statement of Sir, James Allen! SJr James is correct when 'he says that New Zealand has no fear •of Japan. The reason why she is without tfear is that she has perfect confidence in the ability and the willingness of the British Government to protect her racial purity. Had she had any doubts on the subject the feeling to' which Sir John Findlay refers would have been as intense and as widespread as he suggests; but it is noteworthy that when, in-his second statement he'says that "Australasians do not realise the full extent of the menace from Japan " he implies'that the fear is not as great as it should have been. Sir James Allen's statement shows, ■at any rate, that we were ,justified in refusing to. be alarmed by the rumours about modifying the Treaty. But to suppose that the renewal of the Treaty unamended will quell the menace of the East would of course be a fatal.blunder.