BITTER SPEECH

Evening Star, Issue 22806, 15 November 1937, Page 9

BITTER SPEECH

OR KOO AT BRUSSELS “TREATY VIOLATIONS CONDONED" SEARCH FM PEACE IN FAR EAST Frew Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, November 13. Pleading to the Powers to withhold supplies front Japan and send help to China, Dr Wellington Koo, in a hitter speech at a full session of the Brussels Conference, said:— “ The conference is back where it started. Neither a spirit of conciliation nor soft words are of any avail with Japan. Instead, she should be bluntly asked to collaborate in the interests of peace. The conference’s efforts are taken as a sign of weakness, and serve only to inspire Japan’s insolence.

“ japan’s claim that her actions are self-defensive is a deliberate distortion. China for four years has patiently sought a peaceful settlement. The present conflict is the result of perpetual dual diplomacy, and has convinced China of the danger and futility of direct negotiations. Powers accept changes by force of arms and condone treaty violations.” Dr Koo appealed to them to contribute to stability and peace by upholding treaty obligations. DANGER OF ANARCHY. “ If the conception of a change to violence prevails we are faced with international anarchy,” declared Mr Davis. “We are pledged to work only for the immutable foundation of peace.” He w;as confident that the conference could have helped China and Japan. There was a compelling reason—Japan’s material self-interest in w:orld peace and progress—why she should co-operate. M. Delbos said the problem could not he solved by force j it must he settled by peaceful means.. There was a danger bf the conflict developing into a world war.

Mr Anthony Eden said it was impossible for Britain to assent to the doctrine that the conflict was a matter for China and Japan alone. Britain based her foreign policy on respect for international law, and no other was acceptable.

“I cannot admit the principle that dislike of a nation’s Government or internal institutions justified another’s interference in internal affairs by force,” ho said. “It is in the interests of both Powers, which are waging an undeclared war, that an agreed settlement be found immediately. It is necessary carefully to consider the international situation which the Japanese reply created. The only foundation for world peace is respect of treaties, not national ambitions, ideologies, or alliances. We are not opposed to a change, but if changes continue to be based on force civilisation, will proceed to destruction, with suffering.” M. Potemkin said Russia would sup.port any peaceful action for a solution of the Far Eastern problem. M. Spaak submitted a draft declaration prepared by Britain, France, America, and Belgium. The conference adjourned until 4.30 p.m. , JAPAN’S DEFENCE REFUTED. The draft declaration, a sevenpage document, tweepingly refutes ; Japan’s defence. It says: 11 Japan’s concept of the icsue is entirely different from that of most other nations. The conflict concerns all countries, whether signatories to the Nine Power Treaty or the Paris Pact. There is no legal justification for violating another country's territory to prevent the spread of political doctrines. If Japan’s ease were admitted, it would lead to general anarchy. The Powers agree that, me it is declared that the purpose of Japan is to destroy the will and ability of China to resist, direct negotiations would only be prolonged indefinitely, in the event of Japan’s continued refusal to attend the conference, the Powers must consider what attitude they will take when one party claims to set aside a treaty which all others hold to be operative.” SUPffRT FOR DECLARATION EXKITH Tl IE ADIPTEO E BRUSSELS, November 13. *he conference, witib the exception of Italy, established a, solid front against further consultation with Japan. The session was resumed privately at 5 p.m. England, France, the United States, Australia, Canada, Portugal, Bolivia, Mexico, China, Sweden, Holland, and Norway having supported the declaration cabled to Italy, Signor Mariocotti made general representations.

He suggested asking Japan to elucidate the section of her reply inviting the conference to make a contribution consonant with the realities of the situation. This received no support, on which Signor Mariscotti announced that Italy found the draft unacceptable.

Mr Stanley Bruce, who was warmly applauded, lengthily supported the declaration. He said there was something greater behind the whole issue—namely, the sanctity of treaties, the honouring of the pledged word. The conference declaration was discussed paragraph by paragraph before the adoption of the draft in principle, subject to reference to the Governments concerned. The conference adjourned at 8 p.ra., and will reassemble at 4 ip.m. on Monday, when the declaration will probably be formally adopted. The modification of the draft included the elimination, at Russia’s instance, of any direct reference to Communism, and also the suggestion of a further invitation being extended to Japan.

AMERICAS ATTITUDE NO INTENTION OF LEADING CAMPAIGN AGAINST JAPAN NEW YORK, November 14. (Received November 15, at 8 a.m.) Although American sentiment still strongly pro-China, it is increasingly evident'that the United States is not disposed to risk the unpleasant repercussions involved in initiating penalties against Japan. The strongest utterance thus far was that of President Roosevelt on November 5. • He did not name Japan as the aggressor; in fact, observers are beginning to wonder if the world overrated its importance. The change in the United States foreign policy implied therein certainly marked the end of United States isolation, but it is pointed out that the term “ quarantine,” which excited international speculation, is still unexplained. Moreover, subsequent utterance of responsible members of the Adminitration do not suggest that the Chicago speech could be interpreted as committing the United States to serious action to punish aggressor nations. Firstly, the

United States considers that Britain is entitled to initiate pacification of the Far East owing to the vital position of her Pacific possessions, including Australia and New Zealand. The United States is aware of her own danger in the event of spread of the conflict, but feels that she would have ample warning of it. Secondly, the United States has nob forgotten what she considers Britain’s previous failure to honour the Nine-Power Pact. She believes Japan’s domination of Manchukuo would have been averted if Britain had supported the United States then. The episode left a hitter taste in the mouth of practically every American statesman, and constantly crops up in discussions on America’s responsibility in foreign affairs. Thirdly, Japan’s goodwill is an important factor in trade. American silk manufacturers are dependent on Japan for raw material. Suspension of supply would cause disruption to the industry, therefore an economic boycott would be desperately fought. Resolutions demanding an economic boycott and invocation of the Neutrality Act should not be taken too seriously, as they are largely an expression of views of a mere handful of earnest but ineffective well-disposed people. As an example, an audience of 1,000 at a luncheon of the Foreign Policy Association to-day listened to explanations by speakers on China and Japan, and ended by loudly cheering China and hooting Japan, after which they demanded ,a boycott of Japanese goods, hut the loudest demonstrator realised that his influence on United" States policy was infinitesimal. The average citizen is still pursuing his own business, not noticeably moved by China’s plight, being content to leave matters to Washington. It is unfortunately true that the descriptions of Japan’s capture of Kiating appearing in the Sunday newspapers will attract more attention than the pious speeches urging punishment of the victorious aggressor. In addition, the United States has lately been confronted with a nearer problem—the development of Fascism in South America, a subject which, even though it does not immediately affect the United States, is commanding considerable space in the Press. The ‘ New York Times ’ prints a long article by Sir Arthur Willert detailing the rise of Fascism throughout the world and emphasising that the Brussels Conference has done nothing to show that the democracies mean business. The trend shows that the United States is inspired by wholesome antipathy to Fascism, and looks to Europe for a lead. Summed up, the United States is aware of the need for action, but has not the slightest intention of leading the campaign. Mr Davis is in Brussels, with instructions not to commit the United States to action against Japan. It is certain that his instructions will not be altered unless the complexion of the international situation changes unexpectedly.