THE KAMRANH BAY INCIDENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13268, 27 April 1905, Page 6

THE KAMRANH BAY INCIDENT.

It is impossible to holtl that the French Government, however praiseworthy its i intentions mny -have been, litis emerged with absolute credit from the incident connected with the occupation by Admiral Rozhdestveiisky of Kararanh Bay, oil the coast of Indo-China. The .available evidence suggests very distinctly that this French harbour has been utilised by the Baltic fleet as a naval base. If so, it is undeniable that Japan has grave cause for complaint against France in thai, with her sufferance if not with her connivance, the Russians have not- been- compelled to obey the rules of war that are scrupulously respected by their opponents. We can imagine with what indignant remonstrances and, with what violent protest?, the Continent; would meet the conduct of Groat Britain if it were conccivable that she should permit Japan to utilise Hongkong in the way in which, if we are to accept the most trustworthy reports, Russia has utilised Kaniraiili Bay. Hut, qnito clearly, the restrictions to which the Japanese are subjected 111 their conduct fit the momentous struggle that is absorbing the attention of the world must "bo equally applied to the Russians. The picas raised on behalf of France in extenuation of her conduct Were wholly untenable. Conflicting in their terms, they were directed towards the. same object—that of establishing tho irresponsibility of that nation. First, we were informed that it was the constant practice of France to fix no time limit to the sojourn of belligerent vessels in French territorial waters so' long as acts-of hostility, were not performed by them during their stay. But tile sanction of this principle would be directly inconsistent with the application of the strict impartiality which it is the bounden duty of neutrals to observe. And the French Government does not scein to have seriously relied upon the plea. The rule to which tho British and American Governments jointly subscribed in 1871 declares that "a neutral Government is hound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to nialw.use of its ports or waters as the baso of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of tile renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms or the recruitment of men." Again, the British Government promulgated a set of. rules during the SpanishAmerican war that, embodied the policy thus expressed in the . treaty of 1871,and the principle contained in these rules has already been observed in the present war. • But, even if France should not be prepared to act upon the lines of the British policy jn such a case, it is unreasonable,to suggest that it was open to lier, as a neutral Power, to permit Admiral Rozuuestv'onsky to make such use of her 'territorial Waters as, with ov without her permission, he lias done in Indo-China. 'For,, the second plea that was advanced-on belmlf of France was : that, if the 'Russian Admiral has used Kamranh Buy as a ~bdse, it- was without-- the knowledge of the Fi'ench authorities! This is, however, almost childishi-- It is- certainly humiliating to France. • Kamranh Bay, we are told, ■ " does not possess even a Customs port" j and: "is~fai- : frgm ■ auy administrative, ' ' r

centre. 1 ! Moreover, "mentis of rapid official information of happenings there are lacking." . Tho suggestion ..that a nation is entitled, by virtue of a plea of this kind, to divest herself of her responsibility, is too absurd, to merit serious consideration. And the French Government, when the gravity of the situation

into which the nation had drifted was realised by it, promptly abandoned ;tha pleas that, were put forward in excuse of its inaction. While j\k Delcasse represented to tho Japanese Minister in Paris that .the maintenance of a strict neutrality in remote places was beset with difficulty, as probably itr is, the agents of tho Government in IndoCiiina were formally and precisely directed to preserve absolute neutrality, and the precaution was also taken to communicate with the Russian Govern-; ment to seciiro that Admiral Rozlulcstvensky should leave the bay of wliiclr lie was making a use that was not sanctioned by the best international usage. While an official note from St. Petersburg declares that no demand was made on the Admiral to leave territorial waters, wo prefer to believe that it was as tlio result of tho application of pressure that the squadron was forced onco more out into tho open sea, where

it must sooner or later encounter tho enemy that is watching its opportunity to attack it. But a great deal of irritation might have been avoided if France had' loss tardily, and without requiring to be spurred into- action, exhibited a determination to maintain

that impartiality which it is lier duty as a neutral to preserve. It is to "be hoped that one of tho outcomes of tho war, which lias been so prolific of