Problems of Peace in the Pacific

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 50, 1 March 1943, Page 5

Problems of Peace in the Pacific

Vast Difficulties That Should be Thought Over

(By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Special Australian Correspondent.)

Received Sunday, 8 p.m. SYDNEY, Feb. 28.

“One good point about the ‘beat Hitler first’ policy is that it gives us plenty of time to decide what to do with Japan after the war.” With all her energies bent towards stemming the southward tide of Japaneso aggression, Australia so far has had small opportunity to consider the colossal problems of peace in the Pacific. But to-day those are beginning to assume their real importance in the public mind.

Tho introductory comment is offered by a Sydney Telegraph writer. No Commonwealth Government spokesman has referred to the eventual peace with Japan —it being generally appreciated that the Allies have yet to begin their march upon the high road to Pacific victory. But unofficial views now being expressed here, indicate that there may be marked differences of opinion on the post-war policy to be adopted towards defeated Japan. No divergencies, of course, are evident on the military section of peace. It is agreed that the Japanese war machine must be obliterated. But some ob-

servers support Japan’s “legitimate” economic claims and declare there must be no post-war economic discrimination against Japan. They are opposed by a strong section who see in unrestricted Japanese industry, grave menaces both to the health of the sturdy infant ot Australia’s own rapidly expanding industrialism, and to lasting peace itself.

When Colin Clark, economic adviser to the Queensland Government, said recently: “Japan can make a strong case against us for withholding our abundant natural resources from her and we must base our economic plans on the prospect of Australia purchasing very large quantities of manufactured goods from Asiatic countries,” he drew a terse answer from the man who was Australia’s representative at Ver sailles, Mr. W. M. Hughes. “We have to consider which is best for ourselves just as Japan is considering which is best for herself,” retorted Australia’s last war Prime Minister. “What Mr. Clark would apparently have us do is open our gates to an ever-increasing flood of Japanese goods made by sweated coolie labour. This would leave our own people unemployed. Wo cannot possibly do it.” These two comments fairly represent opposite Australian points of view on one of the most serious problems to be faced in the Pacific peace. Neither attitude, however, can yet be accepted as having official benison. Meanwhile, Australia is studying American reactions on the same subject since there is little doubt that the strongest voice in deciding tho Allied peace policy to wards Japan will be that of the United ■States.

Particular attention is being paid to the latest work of Nathaniel Peffer, Columbia University professor, and an authority on Far Eastern affairs. This book, “Basis for Peace in the Far East,” is published in co-operation with the Institute of Pacific Relations, which is the one body making a fulltime gtudy of eventual peace. Peffer advocates that Japan should he delegated territorially to where she was in her hermit days which the bogus State of Manchukuo abolished, and Doth Manchuria and Formosa returned to China. Additionally, all Japan’s merchant marine should he turned over to China and all her material assets on Chinese soil should go to China as part compensation, Japan’s insular posses* sessions in the Pacific should be divided between America and Australia. Th6n, having crushed Japan, says Professor Peffer, the United Nations must give her ‘‘ a just and even generous peace. * * China must agree to impose no discriminations against Japan. All other Powers concerned in Greater East Asia must also extend most favourable nation treatment to Japan.

“The principle that must obtain,” declares Professor Peffer, “is equality for Japan. Tho economic rewards ot Eastern Asia must go to Japan. They will continue to go to Japan as long as Japan is the only land in Eastern Asia to be industrialised—unless arbitarily sopped by Western empires, in which case Japan will break bounds again sooner or later.” Professor Peffer admits the next generation danger is that once the United Nations have set Japan back on her economic feet, *ho may go on the rampage again. But he sees China and Russia as chocks and believes, too, that the world will have established in a new international order, effective devices for dealing with one nation’s aggression.

Some subscription to the view of another American pßofessor, Nicholas Spykman, that the democracies must save Germany and Japan as a counterpoise to Russia and China, is paid by Professor Peffer, who is suspicious of the Soviet though he considers any threat from China is remote. Further, he does not believe that the great Powers of the West would stand idly by and watch Russia and China link in a great militant Communist bloc extending from the Polish plains to the Pacific.

Professor Peffer’s work is provoking the strongest criticisms from many quarters and it is plain that the problems of securing a lasting poace in tht Pacific, thus ensuring tho integrity of Australia and New Zealand tor all time, will present difficulties as vast as those facing a reconstructed world in Europe.