THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1937 THE YANGTSE CRISIS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22917, 21 December 1937, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1937 THE YANGTSE CRISIS

Is the situation created by the Japanese attacks on British and American ships in the Yangtse to produce nothing but idle tears and idle words ? If that be the end of it, all hope of seeing international decency established in our time must be abandoned. Eventually that decency will be established. It would be absurd and faithless to believe otherwise. But the achievement would be gravely hindered and hurtfully postponed if, in the present crisis, suave speech were allowed to usurp the place rightfully belonging to rugged action. Nobody can now think that the bombing and machine- | gunning of the Panay—to take the j outstanding fact in the unpleasant ! series of critical events —were the ! outcome of a "mistake." The j Japanese Government, after vainly ! seeking refuge in fabricated reports of fog and of illegal American i action, as well as in blank denial of accusations since completely proved, has been shamed into admission of guilt. There may be truth in the statement that the conduct of air and other forces on the spot was immediately responsible for the attacks, but this does not free the Government from responsibility. Those forces were its agents, and if they committed the wrong, either under deliberate command of their superiors in the locality or under the excitement of their own reckless zeal, the Government's ultimate culpability is not a whit the less. This culpability has been accepted, after inept efforts to evade it; the Japanese chief of aerial operations has been recalled and dismissed, and the Government has proceeded from one apology to another, until at last one marked by a greater degree of honesty has been unequivocally offered. What now ? Is the receipt of this, with the accompanying verbal guarantees of better conduct in future, to be deemed sufficient ? It is not, to judge by the hesitant attitude of Mr. Roosevelt and the temper of the American people to whom he is directly under constitutional obligation in matters of foreign policy, especially in relation to peace and war. It is evident, according to reliable comment, that Mr. Roosevelt intends to use the utmost firmness short of war. On the positive aspect of this intention, he is fully justified in demanding from the Japanese Emperor and his Government a completely satisfactory reply to the latest American Note. Dismissal of even so eminent a Japanese commander in the field is not enough. There are on official record inflammatory speeches by the Japanese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, • delivered in the Diet and published under authority. The intended effect of these on the national forces cannot be either denied or overlooked. Nor, after the preceding series of reckless breaches of the rights of neutrals engaged "on their lawful occasions" under treaties to which Japan is a party, can the point-blank attacks on neutral ships be condoned. Mr. Eden's description of the British Note reveals it as in agreement with the American, and the Japanese Government knows—although the Japanese people are not being given this information —that Britain and America have been in close consultation on the matter. Hence the Japanese Government's tears and apologies. But it has been given a hope of escaping from its awkward situation: the utmost firmness, "short of war," is understood to be Mr. Roosevelt's intention, and thisqualification—the negative aspect of his threat—weakens all the rest. This is playing into the hands of the Japanese Foreign Minister and the naval and military coteries dictating Japanese foreign policy. A sterner word, one that these foes of international peace can understand, ought to be spoken. Short of war? Signor Mussolini trusted to this reservation when flouting the League and defying a great body of European opinion about his designs on Abyssinia. Herr Hitler and his violent henchmen similarly "gambled on a certainty" when devising means to shatter international covenants. No wonder Mr. Hirota and his militant colleagues dared to follow suit. To this pass extreme pacifism, prating about the virtue of a righteousness dis-; armed and non-resisting, has brought the world. Peace is greatly desirable—but as a first and supreme consideration? It is high time to recast in proper order the scale of ethical values. An opportunity to do this is at the door. No glorification of war is involved; this would be a fatuous misreading of the task. But uprightness—and consequently peace —ought to be furnished with teeth. Difficult as it may be, international law must be made a terror to evildoers. As things are, with this smooth talk of "short of war," Japan has no fear of that law. Let it really, honestly threaten, and a battle for right will be won—without need to strike a blow. A determined demonstration would be compelling. Wrote Sir Norman Angell of Mediterranean perils, "Italy knows that an attempt to seize Malta would be resisted by all the power of the British Empire ; therefore its seizure is not attempted ; the British policy of so defending British territory does not involve war." In the same way, a robust policy of defending British and American rights in the Orient would prevent war. Mr. Roosevelt can usefully recall the fact that his country's Monroe Doctrine, with its | stern threat to fight European invaders of the Americas, deterred invasion. As for Japan, she gave the Chinese of the north and of Shanghai no chance to plead "mistake" for alleged outrages but immediately launched punitive and "civilising" attacks, which grew in horror until these Yangtse excesses affronted neutrals. She should be mad*} to see that such lawlessness will not be tolerated.