THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1932. A SPREADING FEUD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21111, 19 February 1932, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1932. A SPREADING FEUD.

The deadly feud in the Far East has now spread far west, beyond Geneva to Chatham and Portsmouth. British seamen on duty at Shanghai have died from wounds inflicted by Chinese shellfire. It is presumed that the shots were not meant for them but were fired at Japanese positions in or near the International Settlement; perhaps at Japanese transports lying off the wharves. That excuse is not valid : the inference of poor markmanship adds to the perils of the situation for foreigners rightfully within range of reckless attack. Those inclined to argue that the quarrel, induced by bad blood between two foolish neighbours in the Orient, ought to be left to their management, cannot very well continue to take that ground. It was never tenable from the day of the sudden clash on the South Manchuria Bailway. There was then—there is now —no call to take sides with either combatant. In a sense, the quarrel is theirs, and in the end there must be a settlement between them. But both the quarrel and the settlement concern others as well. More than half the world is pledged to renounce war, and these two nations are signatories to that bond. Both are bound, too, by membership in the League of Nations to prefer and seek other means of settling disputes. To these covenants many others are party in a way that makes them jointly and severally responsible for maintaining peace. Apart from such ethical considerations, it happens in this instance that the life and property of many of their nationals are imperilled and have actually been destroyed. This is not the first instance of such loss. These nationals have not gone into the zone of this danger at their own risk: they have been induced to do so by the promise of their personal security and the safety of.their pursuits. Violation of the promise, whatever the occasion, is culpable, and such happenings as those at Shanghai will take a lot of explaining away.

It is admittedly difficultto view with patience a state of affairs seeming to go from bad to worse. There was a time when sharp answer would have been given by British gunboats to any daring to play so fast and loose with promises; the taking of life and the destruction of property would have been met with swift vengeance. The clock cannot, be set back, however; much has happened in a generation to make that course unthinkable, especially in a region ■where many Western nations have common interests. For one to move without seeking the co-operation of the rest is impossible ; the terms of mutual treaties and the development of organised international policy have set that outside the limits of protest. So,far as the root cause of this quarrel goes, the British Government has taken the only reasonable course —it would be highly improper to judge a matter that is coming before the League for judicial The alternative of breaking away from the League cannot be contemplated. Disappointment may be felt because of the failure of the League to impose effective constraint on the combatants. Had pressure been firmer, had the decision to investigate the cause of quarrel been given immediate effect, the conflict might not have extended beyond a few weeks. Instead, through weakness and delay, there have passed months of deepening trouble. Sir John Simon asserts that the League is doing its best, and this may be accepted as true; but there passed week after week when it was doing, apparently, less than its best, and in those weeks grew the risk that has culminated in the plight of Shanghai and the deaths of these British seamen. Geneva has a case to answer; it may be met satisfactorily, when all the happenings there are fully known. At present, the charge of laxity in using the means at its disposal stands unrepellcd, and the difficulty of effective international action has been immeasurably increased by that laxity at an earlier stage. Still, to use international action for all it 7s worth is the only method for the times. From the terms of the last appeal by the League Council to Japan it is evident that the grave implications of the conflict are realised to the full. The continued widening of the breach between the quarrelling nations threatens to involve the world, and it is to Japan, as the better organised of the two nations, this appeal is sent in the name of practically all others. It is not to be interpreted as a pre-judging of Japan's case. Care is taken to say that the Council does not discount the grievances of which Japan complains. These grievances are probably real and great. But there is all too abundant room to think that the Japanese Government has presumed on the tardiness of the Council. This tardiness is explained, no doubt sincerely, as due to a confidence that Japan would act as became a Power so intimately associated with League activities and so punctilious hitherto in fulfilment of all obligations of League membership. This explanation, however, while expected to add weight to this appeal —as one that could not be made to China—is a disquieting acknowledgment of misplaced trust in the force of the obligations accepted by members of the League. Put thus, it may recall Japan to a realisation that ruthless measures pursued in China are assaults on the prestige of the League. The Japanese Government will probably account as of less worth the example of China in placing- her case in the League's hands. This appeal to Japan's sense of superior nationhood js better calculated to stay the strife, which has now gone to such lengths that neither combatant can lightly ignore the need to consider outside Powers,