THE FAR EAST

Hokitika Guardian, 2 May 1934, Page 3

THE FAR EAST

. JAPANESE POLICY RE CHINA. . BRITISH AMBASSADOR’S NOTE. (Per British Official Wireless.) . RUGBY, AtP’il 30 v Japan’s • re-affirmation of her,, acceptance of the policy, of- the open do ; or in China was communicated., to Sir A. Bindley on April 15, by M. Hirota, and an account of that;..■interview was given by ■ Bir John Simon (Foreign Secretary), in reply to a question in the Commons. Sir John Simon said- that the British Ambassador’s communication to the t Japanese Foreign Minister., M. Hirota wa s a .friendly, inquiry. It was to the effect that the principle of equal rights in China was guaranteed very explicitly by the Nine-: Power Treaty ill 1922, to which Japan wes a party, and His' Majesty’s Government must, of course, continue to enjoy all the rights 'in China ■ whicn are common to all the signatories, d are. otherwise proper, except insofar as these rights were restricted by agreements, such, as the consortium .agreement; or insofar as ’Japan had special (rights, recognised by, other Powers and not shared by them.

Sir A. Bindley had added, he said, that anxieties , regarding China expressed in the recent Japanese statement could not app’y to the United Kingdom, since it was the aim of British policy to avoid dangers to the peace and integrity of China, to which the statement referred. His Majesty’s Government naturally could not . admit the Tight of Japan alone to decide, whether any particular action, such a s the provision of technical or financial assistance, promoted such danger, . if that had indeed been the implication of the statement, which they did. not believe. Under Articles 1 and 7, of the Nine-Power Treaty, Jr Pan had the right to cal] the attention of the other signatories to any action in China inimical to her security. This right provided Japan with safeguards, and His Majesty’s Government, therefore, assumed that the statement Was not intended in any \.ay to infringe,, the common rights of other Powers, in China, nor to infringe Japan’s own treaty obligations. In reply, M. • Hirota indicated that His Majesty’s Government were correct in this assnmptjpn.He assured the Ambassador .that'Japan. would observe the provisions of the Nine Power Treaty, and that the policy of the Japanese Government and of His Majesty’s Government, ■ .in. regard to the Treaty coincided. ;He stated, ,iu conclusion, , that. Japan continued to attach the .greatest importance to the maintenance of the open,'-door in Ch'r-a,-•and reaffirmed ' her *'acceptance:oh- that: policy;' ' * AMERICAN NOTE TO JAPAN. NFW YORK, April 30. The “New York '"Times”.’,-, Washington correspondent says: ‘The strong position'"whichthe.- Roosevelt Administration has taken in the Far Eastern situation, was revealed at the State Department to-night by ; the publication of a memorandum, which the . U.S.A. Ambassador, Mr Grew, ,at Tokio, transmitted to the Japanese Foreign Office yesterday. Although" it was coincident with and is similar tp the British Note, the State Department officials indicated that there was no connection between the two Notes.

the note reminds Japan that the relations of the United States with China ,3 re governed by the generally-accepted principles of international law and by the treaties to which the United States is a party, as also is Japan. Treaties,, it says, can lawfully be modified or terminated only by ' those processes that are prescribed, or re-cognised, or. -agreed upon by the parties to them. The American Government seem s to be duly considerate regarding the rights, obligations, and legitimate interests of other countries and expects on the part of other Governments due ;eonsideration of the rights, obligations and legitimate interests of the United States.

In the opinion of the ifmer.ican people an<l Government, says the note, no nation -can, without tlie assent of the other nations concerned, rightfully endeavour to make conclusive its will in a situation where there are involved the rights, 'obligations, and legitimate interests of other sovereign states.

The American Government has dedicated the United States policy to being a “good neighbour,” -and Jo the practical application of that policy it nil] continue, on its own part, and in association with other Governments, to devote its best ,eb forts. .-•/•