TOKIO AND THE TREATY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 36, 11 August 1939, Page 6

TOKIO AND THE TREATY

JAPAN'S POINT OF

VIEW

STATEMENT BY CONSULGENERAL

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In your editorial, •Tokio and the Treaty,"' published on Wednesday, it was made to appear that Japan's action in China is a complete breach of the Nine-Power T. _aty concerning China, signed at Washington in 1922. I crave your indulgence to state the Japanese point of view whether Japan did violate the provisions of the NinePower Treaty.

At the outset I must mention the initial cause of the present SinoJapanese incident. On the evening of July 7, 1937. some 150 Japanese soldiers stationed in China in accordance with treaty rights) were engaged in manoeuvres on their grounds close to the Marco Polo Bridge, Peking. As was the custom, the Chinese authorities were advised in advance of the intention of rhe Japanese commander to conduct some military manoeuvres that evening. In these ! exercises the Japanese soldiers carried no live ammunition. At about U p.m., without warning., soldiers of the 37th Division of the 29th Chinese Army opened fire on the Japanese. " In the district where the incident occurred there lived 17,000 Japanese who looked to their national troops for protection in case of danger. The 150 men of the Japanese force, having no live ammunition, could not reply to the Chinese attack, so they retreated and sent for reinforcements which arrived on the scene later on. The authorities at Peking, both Chinese and Japanese, were immediately informed of what had occurred and a mediation party was formed and sent to the disturbed area. As a result the fighting ceased at 6 a.m. on July 8. But at 3 p.m. the Chinese renewed hostilitip- and repeated the outrage at 6 o'clock the same evening. On the following day, July 9, a truce was arranged between the 29th Chinese Army and the Japanese commander. Shortly afterwards the Chinese soldiers renewed their attack and fired upon the Japanese. A truce was again arranged. On July 11 an agreement was arrived at between the two army authorities in the following terms:— 1. Apology by the representatives of the 29th Chinese Army and the punishment of those directly responsible for the disturbance. 2. The Chinese troops to vacate ths village of Lung-wang-miao, from which they had fired upon the Japanese, and to be replaced by the Peace Preservation Corps for the purpose of keeping the Chinese troops suffi.ciently separated from the Japanese. 3. Adequate measures to be taken for curbing the activities of the antiJapanese "blue shirts" and Communists. General Sung Cheh-yuan, the Com-mander-in-Chief of the Chinese-. 29th jArmy (the attacking force in this case), provisionally agreed to the above terms of adjusting the dispute and went to Tientsin on July 13 to negotiate a final settlement with the commander of the Japanese Garrison, General Katsuki, to whom he personally expressed regret for the affair at the Marco Polo Bridge on the 7th. Thus the trouble was on the point of settlement when other influences intervened.

Up to this point the Nanking Government had not imposed themselves on either side, although on July 9 they had dispatched troops to North China, four divisions and air forces. The sending of these troops was in violation of the agreement made in 1935 between the Hopei-Chahar Political Council and the Nanking Government. But despite General Sung Cheh-yuan's pledge to the Japanese military authorities the Chinese troops repeated their attack on the Japanese forces stationed' near the Marco Polo Bridge; again General Sung Chehyuan promised to complete the troops' withdrawal from the troubled area by noon on July 21.

But on July 21 Chiang Kai-shek and his Nanking advisers were sitting in council formulating their war policy against Japan. They had never had any intention of adjusting the trouble peacefully. After the trouble near Peking hostilities spread all over the northern district. Then there was the brutal massacre of 200 Japanese civilians (men, women, and children) at Tungchow, north of Peking, by 3000 soldiers of the 29th Chinese Army.

The Shanghai incident commenced by the killing of Lieutenant Oyama by the Chinese soldiers. . On the morning of August 14 the Chinese started bombing Shanghai from the air, and the same afternoon Chinese bombers dropped bombs at the traffic circus at the junction of the Edward VII Road, Yu-Yu Chue Road, and Boulevard de Montigny, and the other on the Bund end of Nanking Road, over the Cathay and Palace Hotels. killing many Chinese civilians. It will also be seen from the foregoing that the practice of aerial bombardment in the SinoJapanese conflict in China was begun by the Chinese. Since then the present big scale campaign developed. It is sure that the sovereignty, independence, territorial, and administrative integrity of China are guaranteed by the contracting Powers of "The Nine-Power Treaty," but there is no stipulation in that Treaty to nullify their right of selfdefence and protection of treaty rights. It is exactly the same in the Kellogg Pact. When the British signed it Sir Austen Chamberlain, on behalf of Great Britain, expressed the following important reservation: —

"The language of Article I as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence."

Now this is the very crux of the situation, and should not be lost sight of when considering the Japanese actions in China.

Such an important reservation by the British Government was equally allowable to Japan, to whom the condition of China is a vital matter. The encroachments of a foreign PowerSoviet Russia—and the disorders of the Chinese Government created a situation in China as vitally disturbing to Japan as if a hostile Power were to occupy Ireland and openly make preparations for an armed descent upon the British Isles.

Not only in the case of Manchuria in 1932, but also the present case, the Chinese Government and the local governments exercised the utmost disciumination against Japan in contravention of existing treaty rights, and in the crisis of 1936-37 the Nationalist Government had not scrupled to organise boycotts against Japan and to discriminate against her trade and her nationals in the most provocative fashion, with great help from Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia, taking advantage of the chaotic condition of China and

intending to establish the Soviet influence in China, singled out Japan for attack..

Japan has no desire to establish sovereignty over even one square foot of Chinese soil no more than she has done in Manchuria, which now enjoys a stable system of self-government. Of all Japan's foreign investments, more than 80 per cen are located in China. The Japanese nation is engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and the Japanese people are solidly supporting their Government in this, the gravest challenge to the security of their country in all its.long history. It is a struggle j for self-preservation, and you may rest assured that the Japanese nation will not be thwarted in its progress towards its objective.—l am, etc., K. GUNJI.