THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY. DECEMBER 1, 1928 THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 297, 1 December 1928, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY. DECEMBER 1, 1928 THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA

7JVHERE is a good deal more than appears on the fact of it to be read into the statement upon British relations with China which was embraced in Sir Austen Chamberlain’s first speech in the House of Commons on his return from his health-recruiting American tour. According to our cabled report, he then said that negotiations with the new Chinese Nationalist Government at Nanking for a treaty on tariff matters were still in progress, and indicated that these were proceeding in special consultation with Japan, whose interests in China were only next to Great Britain’s in importance At the same time he stated that constant “conversations” on the subject were being maintained with the diplomatic representatives in China of other Powers concerned. This procedure, he continued, was “based on the obligations of full and frank communica tion specified in Article 7 of the Washington Treaty of 1922,” to which, as has been previously mentioned, the United States, Japan. Great Britain, and five othe: European Powers are parties. It was here that a Labour member—apparently anxious, as is the wont of Labour members, to put his own Government in the wrongasked the Foreign Minister if the same consultations and collaboration were being observed with America as with Japan. The Minister’s reply had best be quoted as it reached ui in tho

cable message. He said that from the very first day he took office, it had been his earnest desire to work harmoniously both with the United States and Japan in resepct to their common interests. He was quite certain that the answer he had given would not be new to Washington. He added that Washington must be aware that one of the very first steps which he took on assuming office was to express the hope that this country and the United States might pursue a common policy, and at any rate consult freely in regard to all matters in relation to China.

To appreciate the full significance of this we must bear in mind that only a day earlier we had had a Washington message in which it was stated that Washing ton officials denied having received any information from Britain or Japan of an understanding reached between those two countries relative to a co-operative policy in China. It was further stated that the United States would not be concerned over co-operation among other interested Powers, provided nothing was done to interfere with the “open door” policy. It was pointed out that “the American Government had recently pursued its own policy in China independently of other countries, as was seen in the new tariff treaty and the proposal to raise the status of the American Legation in China to that of an Embassy.” It was evidently with the substance of this latter message in mind that Sir Austen Chamberlain spoke as he did. The obvious implication to be drawn would seem to be that Great Britain had entered some kind of protest, however mild, against the “independent” course which America had adopted, pointing out, no doubt, that itwas scarcely in accord with the terms of the treaty to which she was a party. The article in the main treaty to which Sir Austen Chamberlain specifically referred provides: “That the contracting parties agree that, whenever a situation arises which, in the opinion of any one of them, involves the application of the stipulations of the present treaty and renders desirable discussion of such application, there shall be full and frank communication between the contract ing Powers concerned.” Beyond this, the whole body and spirit of this treaty, as well as of the collateral subsidiary treaty with regard to tariff revision in China, proceed upon the footing of action in common and in sympathy among the signatory Powers. The primary object ostensibly in view was the ultimate recognition of China’s sovereignty and integrity as a State and the institution there of a stable Government. The “open door” principle, though given every prominence, was made a secondary matter affecting only the outside nations among themselves. How, in the face of all these considerations, the American Government seeks to justify the separate negotiations it has carried and is carrying through has yet to be explained. The completely changed conditions in China would seem only to emphasise the necessity for fresh general consultations if the letter, to say nothing of the spirit, of the treaties is to be respected. This aspect of the case also America, in her desire to be the first to make good with the new Chinese Government, would seem to have entirely ignored. There need thus be no wonder at the note of disappointment and regret that is easily to be detected in the British Foreign Minister’s statement on the situation as it now stands. A good deal more is yet to be heard on the subject, and probably at no late date, so that it is as well to bear the present position in mind. Up to now the American Government would seem to have been engaged in a process of common jockeying that is scarcely in consonance with the lofty spiritual guiding principles its President professed in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation.