NINE RELEASED

Grey River Argus, 8 February 1940, Page 7

NINE RELEASED

ASAMA MARU CREW

Not Fit for War Service , EXCHANGE OF NOTES. j [British Official Wireless.] RUGBY, February 6. I Questioned in th*. Lords regarding ' tlu Asama Maru incident, the Fori eign Secretary referred to Mr Arita’s , statement at Toklq, to-day, regard-. ' ing the negotiations which have been , proceeding between the British and Japanese GovernmenU He said that the correspondence would be laid beI lore Parliament /to-night. Lorn Halifax added: “It has been I found on investigation into the train,l mg and antecedents of the 21 men removed from the Asama Maru, that some are relatively unsuitable Xfor military service, and while reserving I ail its legal rights, the British Goyernment is accordingly prepared to ' release nine men, who w.ll be handed over the appropriate Japanese authorities in due course. Meanwhile, the Japanese shipping aa ™° r " ' ties have been instructed, * n , to refuse passage to any individual of I a belligerent country who is embodied In armed taw. «r * being so embodied. While the Bntisn Government has maintain t^s nf the legal position in this maltci, ?l i a nuspat?d Wat wch mounts as that in eonnectionwith the . As=>™ Maru Will be avoided m latuxe m (Received February 8, L4o a.m.) LONDON, February. 7. The Press unanimously endorse ® the settlement of the Asama Maru question, and praise the comffionsense attitude adopted by the two Governments. In England the feeling is one of relief that the incident has been liquidated. < Press Praise for commonsense DIPLOMACY (Received February 8, 12.54 a.m.) - LONDON, February 7. ■ “The Times” in a leader in regai , to the Asama Maru declares, monsense diplomacy has produced as satisfactory a settlement as was pos- , cibie. The comparative speed with 3 which the agreement was r eachad . says a great deal for the skill and forbearance with which both sides handled the question. “The Times” diplomatic correspondent says that the British and Japanese Governments have reached a large decree of understanding, the extent of which is revealed in the Ministers : statements jand correspondence of Fcbruaiy 6. The "Daily Telegraph” in a leader says: Though both sides agreed o dill’er on the legal aspect, a solution has been found enabling Britain to maintan. intact her own interpretation of the law, while ensuring that similar incidents will not recur to disturb Anglo-Japanese relations. The "Daily Herald” in a leader described the settlement as a good example of the Government’s sensibly agreeing to differ. z THE WHITE PAPER. [British Official Wireless.] RUGBY, February 6. The White Paper reference to the Asama Maru, ends with the British communication, in which, as announced by Lord Halifax and Mr. Chamberlain in Parliament, to-day, Britain states that, while reserving all her legal rights, she is prepared , to release nine out of the 21 men removed from the Asama Maru. In its first communication handed , to Sir Robert Craigie, British Ambassador at Tokio, on the day fol- ■ lowing the incident. Japan main- j tained that the universally-recognis- , cd usage was that a belligerent Pow- < er could demand on the high seas 1 only those subjects of another bel- < ligerent who were actually embodied j in the armed forces. Japan stated j she could not but regard the British action as a serious and unfriendly act against Japan. Britain replied in a Note from Sir R. Craigie to Mr. Arita, dated Janu- , ary 27 in which she said, "Britain profoundly regrets the interpretation put on her action by J'apan, and a’-ails herself of this opportunity to i slate that there is no unfriendly ac- < tion whatsoever in the exercise of her right as a belligerent to stop and search neutral shipping at sea. The exercise of this right does not, in Britain’s view, imply any slight upon the honour or national dignity of the neutral State involved, and this has been amply demonstrated in : fhe present and in preceding wars.” The Note recites the facts of the ; case, pointing out that Britain is i aware of an organised attempt by Germany to secure the return of , German" mercantile marine officers and men from America. So anxious , was Germany to obtain the services of these men that they were being dispatched by a long, expensive route, across the Pacific to Japan. Her mercantile marine is i laid up in port, and Germany would not have devoted part of her scanty supplies of foreign exchange to so expensive an .ooeiation if the object was not to enable the services of the men to be employed for military operations. Later in the Note the fact is brought out that some of the Germans in question formed part of the engineroom staffs of tankers, and their special knowledge of Diesel engines rendered it practically certain that they were intended to be employed on return for submarine services.

The British Government was aware of at least four parties of these men, who were due to leave America almost simultaneously, of which the first party of 50 sailed on the Asama Maru. Of the fifty, thirteen officers and eight technical ratings were removed. The remainder, though trained seamen, but without special qualifications, were allowed to proceed. “It is this action of which the Imperial Japanese Government contests the legality. It does not. as the British Government understands the position, dispute the legitimacy of the exercise of the right to visit and search by a belligerent warship on the high seas. The Japanese Government does not dispute that certain categories of enemy nationals may legitimately be removed from a neutral vessel, but contends that the persons removed in the present case do not fall within the categories in question. This is, accordingly, the only legal issue be-

tween the two Governments to which the present case gives rise.” To an examination of this issue almost the whole of the rest of the Note is devoted. It is pointed out that in handing the original memorandum to the British Ambassador, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Article Forty-seven in the Declaration of London, constituted the basis of the Japanese arguments, and the Note declares: “The Declaration of London never having come into force; is not binding on any State, and cannot be relied on against the British Government as an authority.”

RIGHT TO REMOVE MEN. In any case, Article 47 of this deL deration was not the origin of the right to remove enemy nationals from neutral ships since there exist(d for centuries such a practice, which became the subject of qualifying limitation by treaty provision. Such qualification, dating from the early seventeenth to the mid-nine-teenth century, sought to limit the removal to “military persons and persons 'effectively in the service of the enemy,” but this definition was obviously inapplicable under modem conditions. The right would become illusory if it did not cover individuals who, though not on the peace-time military strength, are under legal liability to take their place in the enemy ranks. The latter are precisely the persons likely to be travelling in neutral ships in time of war. It cannot be seriously contended that the mere fact that such persons have not actually joined the corps to which they belong, carries the conclusion that they arc not in the military service of the enemy, and the suggestion they are not within the category of persons, who may be removed from neutral ships, seems to result entirely from an interpretation which has bom placed in some quarters •on the terms of Article 47 of the Declaration of London, which, as already argued, was riot a binding authority. The British contention, the Note says, is strongly supported by the practice of 1914-18. After showing it is clear from Article 77 of the German Prize Ordinance. that Germany regards persons who “are making a voyage in order to put themselves in the service of the enemy, as armed forces, ’ the British Note proceeds: “The Imperial Japanese Government takes the contrary view about the Germans now in question. It is making a claim which the German Government could not make for itseli. J'apan can hardly expect such claim to be admitted by Britain in the existing circumstances. “I may adn that Germany’s practice in the present war has gone even beyond the provisions of its Prize Ordinance. Not only has Germany removed Poles of military age from neutral vessels in the Baltic, but has removed from a Swedish ship and sti’l holds in captivity British fishermeri who had been picked up after the destruction of their boat by German forces, although the fact the nun concerned we*--* engaged in innocent fishing is strident evidence th.-.y were not on their way to join armed forces. Japan will not expect Britain to be bound by a supposed rule which is denied and disregarded by the enemy.”

STOPPING U-BOAT WARFARE

Having argued the general legal position and explained that of the particular Germans concerned, the note declares: “Since the outbreak of the war, not only British lives and shipping, but also neutral lives arid shipping, have been lost as the result of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, which was carried out in violation of international law, and agreements to which Germany is a party, and with total disregard of the dictates of humanity. Biltain is determined to put an end to this method of warfare by means St its disposal, and cannot reconcile it with the obligations to Britons themselves, to say nothing of neutral interests, to risk innocent lives and shipping by allowing personnel to reach Germany which can be employed to perpetuate this menace.”

JAPAN’S VIEW OF LEGALITY.

Mr. Arita replied on February 1, expressing great pleasure at the regret expressed in the preceding British note at the profound resentment aroused in Japan by the incident, but stating he held fundamentally different opinions from the British Government on the legal arguments. In contradiction to the British contention he enunciated the view of Japan ’as follows: “The removal cf enemy nationals from neutral ships engaged on. peaceful traffic on the high seas has essentially been regarded as illegal in international law in general.” Japan also contested the British arguments based on German prize rules.

In Sir R. Craigie’s reply on February 5, he announced a willingness to release nine of the men seized, who on examination had been found relatively unsuited for military service. " The Ambassador states the inability of the British Government to accept the validity of the Japanese legal arguments, and affirms that Britain considers it is fully entitled under international law to remove the 21 men. He further reserves the right of reply to Mr. Arita’s note in due course.