Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 24, 1937. TALKS AT BRUSSELS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 305, 24 November 1937, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 24, 1937. TALKS AT BRUSSELS.

Opinion in Congress is harden- 1 ing against further American participation in the conference at Brussels. Senator Pitman, following a conference with the Secretary of State (Air Cordell Hull), declared that the United States could expect nothing from the meeting of nations. Now there is a clamorous demand that the American delegation shall be recalled, combined with an attack on the war debt defaulting countries. That the conference should have achieved nothing of practical value does not cause surprise, but failure is not to be used as an argument that it should not have been called. Prom the first it was known that Air Norman Davis went to Brussels with instructions not to commit the United States to any action against Japan. He would not be singular in that respect, and in such circumstances the conference was not launched with prospects of high success. Japan herself refused to have anything to do until the discussions, for the conference was identical in constitution with that which examined the Sino-Japanese dispute of 1931-33, and she is still smarting from the censure she then received. Certain American opinion is sharply hostile to any thought of aid for China again Japan, and resents the view gaining ground that Japan, Germany, and Italy, the signatories to the Anti-Comintern Pact, are being assailed instead of efforts being made to enforce the Nine-Power Treaty. _ Alost American Senators named in the controversy find refuge for America in the Neutrality Act, which imposes restrictions against the export of arms, munitions, and implements of war to belligerents in a foreign war. The object, of course, is to keep the United States from becoming embroiled in a foreign war and President lioosevelt regards neutrality as the only sound policy for his people. The Americans being not merely observers at Brussels, but acting in full membership gives concern in spme Congressional quarters that decisions taken will lead to trouble between the United States and Japan, and to commitments in a foreign field, lienee the “new crescendo” in the resentment against developments at Brussels. The fear is mostly illusory. The conference has passed a draft declaration prepared by Britain, I ranee, Belgium, and the United States asserting that Japan’s conception

of the dispute with China is entirely different from that held by most of the other nations, that the conflict concerns all countries, that there was no legal justification for the violation of China’s territory to prevent the spread of political doctrines, that direct negotiations would only prolong the war indefinitely, and that, Japan continually refusing to attend the conference, the Powers must now consider what common attitude to ' take when one party claims to set aside a treaty to which all the other parties attribute operative validity. Italy alone would not subscribe to the declaration, and the three Scandinavian countries refrained from voting because of their meagre interests in the Far East, though they accepted the principle enunciated. Japan has received notice of the decision which in effect applies also to Germany and Italy as signatories of the Anti-Communist Pact. This stage of the proceedings has caused concern in the United States, chiefly as to what will happen next, so the world is again confronted with the spectacle of leaders of a great Power doing, everything _ possible to keep it from exercising an influential part in a correctly called conference. No country or its people want war, but united world opinion can have a deterrent effect upon aggressor nations. The real position in America is aptly summed up in the statement that the “United States is aware of the need for action, but has not the slightest intention of leading a campaign.”