BLUNT WORDS

Evening Star, Issue 21381, 7 April 1933, Page 12

BLUNT WORDS

LORD LYTTOH ON JAPAN ; “ The attitude of the Japanese General Staff is that of the Prussian General Staff from 187 U-1914,” declared Lord Lyttou who was head of the Manchurian Commission, in, a striking speech which he made in Paris to : a meeting organised by the “ Nouvello Ecole cle la Paix ” (states the ‘ Manchester Guardian ’). The meeting was under the chairmanship of M. Paul Reynaud, former Minister for the Colonies.

“Japan,” said'Lord Lytton, does not appear to have kept pace with the latest developments of political thought and practice which have been going on in. the Western World. Although she has established the form of democratic government, her armies and navy are still organised on a feudal basis, and the heads of her fighting services, though bearing the titles of Ministers, are independent and responsible to the Government alone. Of their efficiency there can be no question, but the attitude of the Japanese General Staff is that of the Prussian General Staff from 1870-1914.

• “ The attitude of Japanese nationals in Manchuria, as recalled by their actions during the last eighteen months, appears to be that of the authors of the Jameson Raid in South Africa in 1895. The political thoughts of Europe have undergone a change in the last ton years almost as great as that which took place in Japan between 1860 and 1900. The international relationships of the States in the post-war world are governed by the Covenant of the League .of Nations and .the terms of the Kellogg Pact. “ It is no longer possible for a country to be the sole arbiter of the action it may take in pursuit of national interest's. The General Staff of every country is necessarily subject to-day not merely to tho control of its national Government hut to the obligations of these international intruments.

“ That is a. fact which appears insufficiently appreciated in Japan, and the failure to appreciate it has produced the Far Eastern crisis.” Referring to China, Lord Lytton said: “How can China be helped, and how soon can the establishment of a strong Central Government be accomplished? These are the questions of immediate urgency in that part of the world. The fact that most impressed

itself on my mind when in China was the colossal*man-power of the country. The future- of China seems to he wrapped up in the questions how, when, and by whom will this splendid manhood be given-the unifying force of national consciousness, Geneva or Moscow ? The shadow of the great question is cast on the East as it is upon the West. “At present China has chosen Geneva, but if Japan should persist in her present policy and Geneva should fail, the choice may be, however reluctantly, reversed. Japan ' fears the spread into Korea of Russian Communism and she sees with anxiety the rising tide of Chinese Communism from the south. Nanking could have welcomed her help in resisting both, but instead Japan has chosen to interpose by force a buffer State of her own creation in Manchuria which cannot but increase the very danger it is nihant to guard against. ' . , _ T “When I used, the word Japan 1 must not be misunderstood. The Japanese people have always been sincere and enthusiastic in support of the League of Nations, but the Japanese General Staff, which for the moment controls the Government of Japan, believes that it can successfully defy both Moscow. and Geneva. That road can never lead to peace.” GANDHI AND POLITICS.

Healing with India, Lord Lytton said that Gandhi was an idealist who dreamt of a most perfect future, but was without the capacity to remedy an imperfect present. “A sincere and determined pacifist, he has accepted the leadership of a political, organisation that, believes only in war. “ Ho is not himself a, hater or the British, but the only unity amongst bis followers is to be found in their social animosities, in the conflict within the Hindu community itself. He is an ardent reformer, and had he confined himself to the task of social reforms, for which lie is conspicuously fitted, he might have been the greatest Indian of bis generation. . , , . “ In politics he is always out ot his depth, and, though bis personal cbar : acter is as deeply revered as ever, India has become tired of his policy and of civil disobedience, which has only ied to the violence which he deprecates.” 1