POLICY OF U.S.A.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 15 November 1937, Page 6

POLICY OF U.S.A.

CONFLICT IN FAR EAST NO DIRECT ACTION AGAINST JAPAN [United Press Association-By Electrio Telegraph-Copyright] NEW YORK, 14th November. Although American sentiment is still strongly in favour of China, it is increasingly evident that the United States is not disposed to risk the unpleasant repercussions involved in initialing penalties against Japan. It is noteworthy that the strongest utterance so far, namely, that of President Roosevelt at Chicago on sth October, did not name Japan as the aggressor. In fact, observers are beginning to wonder if the world has overrated the importance of the change in the United States foreign policy implied in the speech. Certainly it marked the end of the United States isolation, but it is pointed out that the term “quarantine,” which excited international speculation, is still unexplained. Moreover, subsequent utterances by responsible administration officials do not suggest that the Chicago speech is interpretable as committing the United States to serious action to punish aggressor nations. First, the United States considers Britain more entitled to initiate pacification in the Far East owing to the vitalness of her Pacific possessions, including Australia and New Zealand. The United States is aware of her own danger in the event of a spread of the conflict, but feels she would have ample warning of it. Secondly, the United States has*not forgotten what she considers to be Britain’s previous failure to honour the Nine-Power Pact. She believes Japan’s domination in Manchukuo could have been averted if Britain had supported the United States then. The episode left a bitter taste in the mouth of pz-actically every American statesman and it constatnly crops up in discussions of America’s responsibility in foreign affairs. Thirdly, Japan’s good-will is an important factor in trade. American silk manufacturers are most dependent to Japan for raw material, and the suspension of the supply would cause disruption in the industry, for which reason an economic boycott would be desperately fought.

INEFFECTIVE DEMONSTRATION Resolutions demanding an economic boycott and invocation of the Neutrality Act should not be taken seriously. They are largely the expression of the views of a mere handful of earnest but ineffective, well-disposed people. For example, an audience of 1000 at a luncheon of the Foreign Policy Association to-day listened to explanations from spokesmen of China and Japan, and ended by loudly cheering China and hooting Japan. Afterward they demanded a boycott of Japanese goods. But it is realised that the loudest demonstrations influence United States policy only in an infinitesimal degree. The average citizen is still pursuing his own business, not noticeably moved by China’s plight and content to leave matters to Washington. It is, unfortunately, only too true that the descriptions of Japan’s capture of Kiating appearing in the Sunday newspapers will be given more attention than pious speeches urging the punishment of the victorious aggressor. In addition, the United States has lately been confronted with a nearer problem, the development of Fascism in South America, a subject which, even where it does not immediately affect the United States, is commanding considerable space in the Press. The “New York Times” prints a long article by Sir Arthur Willert (a former head of the News Department and Press Officer at the British Foreign Office) detailing the rise of Fascism throughout the world and emphasising that the Brussels Conference has done nothing to show that the democracies mean business. Its trend is to show that the United States is inspired with a wholesome antipathy to Fascism, but also feels the problem more deeply affects Europe, which is looked to for a lead. Summed up, the United States is aware of the need for action, but has not the slightest intention of leading the campaign. Mr Norman Davis went to Brussels with instructions not to commit the United States to action against Japan and it is certain the instruction will not be altered unless the complexion of the international situation changes most unexpectedly.