RACIAL ISSUE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 30 September 1924, Page 5

RACIAL ISSUE

THE STUMBLING BLOCK.*

JAPAN’S ATTITUDE. EI CABLE -PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT LONDON, Sept. 29. Th© Geneva correspondent of the Central News says M. Loucher and M. Briand conferred at length with Baron Adatchi (Japan), with a view to obtaining modification of Japan’s attitude on the arbitration protocol, but Baron Adatchi was adamant, and continued to threaten that Japan would not sign. correspondents emphasise the seriousness of the position that Japan has created. They admit that without Japan’s signature the protocol would lie useless, and the efforts of M. Herriot and Mr Ramsay MacDonald in the direction of disarmament will be frustrated.

The Morning Post correspondent considers that Japan, devastated within and insulted abroad, is readv to seize anything to restore her prestige and satisfy public opinion. Australia, whose internal policy would be first affected, are opposing strongly on the grounds that it . would be an encroachment of domestic sovereignty, opening the door to interference in all sorts of internal questions, which would soon put an end to the League. The British attitude is most concise. Britain will refuse to sign the protocol rather than give away the principle of non-interference in domestic matters. Japan desires to eliminate a clause m article six, which declares a nation an .aggressor if it attacks another nation over a matter which the .international court has ruled a domestic problem. This proposal indicates Japan’s intention to avoid being named an aggressor in the event of her attacking America over the exclusion of Japanese or interfering with Chinese internal affairs. The deletion of the clause would allow Japan, in a dispute over “white Australia,” to proceed to attack Australia without immediately becoming an aggressor, although the matter was previously ruled by the international court as domestic and beyond the League’s interference. The Japanese, now hint that unanimity will not prevail among £he British and Dominion delegates owing , to India’s antagonism to a “white Australia,” 1 Sir James Allen requested Dr. Benes tor explain the position of a nation not signing the protocol, and pointed out that New Zealand wanted to know her position in the event of her refusal to sign. Dr. Benes answered that the Erotocol would merely continue to be ound by the League’s covenant. New Zealand finds difficulty in acquiescing to the protocol demands, and may refuse to sign.

POSITION OF AGGRESSORS. DISCUSSED AT GENEVA. *

GENEVA, Sept. 29. Ihe first committee, after- a prolonged and animated discussion, adopt- • chairn l a n’s report on the judicial position of the protocol. An unexpected outcome was the exception taken by the Japanese to article 6 (not five) relating to the action of . the council in dealing with an aggressor. Baron. Adatchi read a declaration of the Japanese delegation, the substance of which is as follows: “The ideal of the League is to settle oacifically all conflictions between nations. The draft protocol, however; does not' make good the gaps in the covenant in this connection, inasmuch 'as article 15 of 'the covenant continues to permit a State to escape international investigation under the pretext that the matter is within its exclusive competence, even if the matter infringes the honour, pre-' .indices and vital interests of another State. According to article 6 of the protocol the League, while abstaining from lending its pacific action to-the State wronged, threatens to consider that State an aggressor, should it adopt measures for the defence of its legitimate interests. Thus the draft protocol would lead to the protection of a State which rejected the supremacy of international justice and would condemn a State which simplv asked for impartial application and justice. The Japanese delegation, which had already experienced great difficultv in accepting article 15 of the covenant, regrets it is unable to adhere to the illogical aggravation of the stipulation in article 6 of the protocol.” M} e judicial clauses of the protocol, as drafted by the sub-committee and presented to the committee, impose the same sanctions on> non-member States as upon members un the event of their refusal to conform to the new procedure for a pacific settlement.