THE “PRICKLY PACIFIC”

Evening Star, Issue 19634, 13 August 1927, Page 9

THE “PRICKLY PACIFIC”

SECOND HONOLULU CONFERENCE CHINESE CASE STATES (Communicated.) “For the Press of the world only catastrophe is news. Peace seldom gets into the headlines,” said Professor James T. Shotwell, of Columbia University. in an Institute of Pacific Relations public lecture on the eve of its second Honolulu conference. If this be true, then there is no news emanating from the opening deliberations, for the first sessions have been marked by a conspicuous magnanimity. Yet the greatest frankness characterised the statements presented by the leaders of the several national groups during tho second day’s meetings. No pretence was made at glossing over what one member referred to as the “prickly ’ situations in the Pacific. The conferees seem to have armored themselves with friendliness instead of suspicion,'against the prickles. Following the Chinese presentation, Sir Frederick Whyte, prefacing his statement for the British group, begged permission to testify to Ids gratitude for the “ happy chance or happy thought ” which had arranged his desk next that of a man whom, said Sir Frederick, “ without derogation to tho rest of the assembly, 1 consider the most interesting here.” This was Dr David Z. T. Yui, head of the Chinese group. “ World affairs now revolve upon the two poles of Orient and Occident,” said Sir Frederick in his opening paragraph, and went on to say that the policies of world Powers in relation to this crucial axis of affairs was of the most urgent concern, since “ by their action and reaction the future of the entire globe will be decided.” “ We here are not concerned with the execution of policy, nor are we responsible for tho diplomatic action of our respective Governments. We arc therefore able to seek the truth in all things. It is the proclaimed function of the Institute of Pacific Relations (a) to search for the facts out of which all policy is born, and (b) when the facts are known, to examine all national policies without prejudice in order to see whether they really correspond with the facts. “ To tho fulfilment of that function we of the British Delegation will contribute all that lies in our power. We shall put all our cards on the table, eschewing propaganda and offering our cordial co-operation to all.” Dr Yui, speaking for China, had already laid before the conference in logically assembled order tho outstanding facts in Chinese affairs since tho conference of two years ago. And doing this in the most dignified and modest manner, ho yet minced no words. In speaking of the popular foreign justification of troops on Chinese soil, to safeguard foreign lives, property, and trade, Dr Yui declared that China can scarcely be expected to take the view that she “exists mainly for her foreign trade.”

“ Wq have to-day in China thousands of foreign troops and between ono and two hundred foreign gunboats. The British Government has sent over 30,000 soldiers to Shanghai; the Japanese Government has despatched several thousand to Shantung; and the other foreign Governments have also done whatever they claimed their own interests demanded. On the other hand, the Chinese people are convinced that whatever danger there may be to foreign life and property in the course of our revolution can scarcely be used to justify the action of the foreign Governments in despatching their troops and gunboats to Chinese territory, which is a distinct infringement of our sovereignty. To reduce this question to the simplest term, the presence ol so many foreign troops and gunboats in Chinese territory at a time when the revolution in China is finding itself seriously threatened from without as wel 1 as within, and when the Nationalistic feeling is running high, can hardly bo denied as a most serious problem, which requires immediate attention.”

lu speaking on the subject of treaties, Dr Yni said: “The Chinese people are divided on a number of political issues, but they are absolutely united in demanding and working for the abrogation of the unequal treaties. I wish to point out that the abrogation of the old treaties, and the formation of new ones on an equal and reciprocal basis, constitutes the key to the solution of may problems in the relations between China and the foreign Governments concerned. The sooner this work is started the better. The Chinese people are not charging up all our national ills and difficulties to the unsatisfactory foreign relations. But we must solve our external and internal problems at the same time, as often as they have most intricate and inseparable relations.” ' ‘ COMM UNISTIC NIGHTMARE. ’’ He touched upon what ho termed the “Communistic nightmare” winch foreign nations have been suffering over Chinn, reducing it to the following simple terms:—“ During the Northorn expedition of the Nationalist army the Communists within the Kuomlntang greatly helped, but they also almost ruined it. It was due, m no small measure, to the splendid organisation and fearless spirit of the Communists that the expeditionary force was driven over the mountains of Hunan and Kiangsi to the Yangtze Valley in a few months. At Die same time, the outrages instigated by the Communists at .Nanking last March, and the subsequent split between the Knomintang and the Communist party, resulted in rival Governments at Hankow and Nanking, and nearly wrecked an early unification of our country. Although the Communistic influence still obtains in certain sections, yet its days seem to bo numbered.” Dr Yni tabulated the numerous socalled “ incidents ” which have occurred iu China’s relations with the Bowers entrenched within her territory during lire last two years which have had a profound effect upon Chinese sentiment, and many of which are still awaiting negotiation—such as the Shanghai May dll incident of 11*25, the Shamcen incident, and the Wanhsien incident; ho inetioned also the various conferences and Governmental memoranda which have been unsatisfactory to the Chinese people, and concluded as follows;

“ Friends, I have, in a spirit of utmost sincerity, set before you tiic things which have happened in my country during the past two years, and which cannot but have a profound influence on the Pacific relations. 1 have not passed judgment on them, and there is no necessity for it. Do wc not agree, however, that wo must discuss them, and, if possible, reach some common understanding which will be capable of facilitating their early and satisfactory solution? During the next two weeks this company of true internationalists and, therefore, sincere nationalists, will surely bo able better to understand our Pacific problems, and, through mutual understanding and co-operation, greatly to improve our Pacific relations. May our efforts not cease until onr common goal is reached!” BRITISH STATEMENT. The British statement of policy and position in the Pacific, though it followed immediately upon Dr Yui’s conclusion, was in no sense an answer to China’s statement, they both being formally prepared papers. The aim of the first session, it was announced, was informational, not discussional, and the problems suggested would be taken up subsequently in sectional round tables in the effort to draw out all available facts and points of view.

Yet Sir Frederick Whyte, in his presentation, dealt largely with the subject of British-Chineso relations, quoting Sir Austin Chamberlain on the British aim in China and endeavoring to establish the conviction of Great Britain’s sincerity in her recent interchange of diplomatic memoranda. “ British policy in China took a new turn at, or perhaps I should say after, the Washington Conference of 1921-22. The treaties signed at that time committed the Bowers to certain principles of which you are all aware. The acceptance of these principles represented a real new departure for some of the Bowers, while for others these principles were only the restatement of a policy which the latter had already pursued for some time. But Washington, however important in substance or in theory, was only the first step. We are here concerned with the development of the Washington policy in action.” The British Foreign Office began at once to put that policy into action, Sir Frederick stated. “The British Government acknowledges that tho present situation is unusual, and has acted accordingly. It does not wait for, or insist upon, the establishment of a strong Central Government in China before putting its policy into practice,” he said.

“ But what are the acts which give significance to British policy to-day?” Sir Frederick then cited the status ol negotiation over IVeihaiwei, the Hankow, Kiukiang, and Tientsin Concessions, and the Shanghai Mixed Court, and asked that these well-known facts be made the starting point in the work of the conference. “They are but the first steps on the road of new relations between China and Great Britain, and i hope to learn from the discussions next week how we may proceed further and faster along that road.” Sir Frederick won hearty applause for the energy and sincerity of his conclusion, which was;— “ My friends, I see beyond the political troubles of to-day an era in our relations with China, in which we shall he equal not only in intention, but in fact. The movements and countermovements which so confuse us in the China of 1927, the violence with which tho national spirit is being generated before onr very eyes, tho incidents which arise out of the present revolution : these things, all of them, create problems for governments and often produce most unhappy results; but these things, all of them, are unfailing signs of life, and we know that when a nation is reborn tho pangs of its new birth arc extreme. New China we salute; New China in promise, in process of creation; and, if there is a part which, under Providence, we can play in promoting her new growth, jre snail gladly play it,’-