BRITAIN AND CHINA

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20022, 12 February 1927, Page 11

BRITAIN AND CHINA

DEBATE IN COMMONS. PEACEFUL POLICY REITERATED. HOPEFUL NEGOTIATIONS. PROMISE OF AN AGREEMENT. (Pre»» Association—By Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, February 10. (Received Feb. 11, at 9 p.m.) In the House of Commons the amendment to the Address-in-Reply, moved by Mr C. P. Trevelyan (Labour)) was rejected by 320 votes to 118. The amendment expressed regret at the Government’s delay in dealing with the Chinese situation, and deplored the despatch of armed forces to the Par East, which, it declared, was calculated not only to increase the risks to which British subjects in various parts of China are exposed, but to put obstacles in the way of an equitable and permanent friendly understanding with the Chinese people on the basis of a frank recognition of their national independence. The amendment invited the House to call for the immediate diversion or recall of the troops en route to China. THE MOVER’S SPEECH. In submitting his motion, Mr Trevelyan said that Labour’s policy was to put China on a footing of national independence in the fullest meaning of the term. Labour would not allow Britain to quarrel with the Soviet, because the latter was backing that policy. Personally, he believed that the Conservative Government was moving in the same direction, though more cautiously, but the sending of troops had brought chaos when a settlement was about to be reached. Selfrespecting Governments did not sign treaties while the mailed fist was being shaken in their faces. Mr Trevelyan said that he regretted that the League s intervention was not sought. There was no proof that they could not have got a Government guarantee from Mr Chen for security. The speaker was of opinion that the Government’s course constituted a disastrous and immediate risk of destroying for a time the chance of a negotiated settlement. “We send powder there, and a spark might light it, ’ he concluded. MINISTER’S FRANK STATEMENT. Whop Sir Austen Chamberlain rose he emphasised the difference between Mr Trevelyan’s speech and those of Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Mr J. H. Thomas. Mr MacDonald and himself were not far apart in the policy they desired to pursue in China, but Mr Trevelyan h: d usett language which might well be taken elsewhere as encouragement to a settlement. The Government’s policy had been to co-operate with the other Powers. Britain in December bad indicated the broad lines upon which she was ready to move in the hope of placing relations on a friendly basis. All the agitators in Shanghai and Canton had been anti-British, and though there were three other concessions in Hankow, only Britain’s was attacked. Did ever troops show such gallant self-control as the naval men did on January 31 And, despite the shaking of the mailed fist in our faces and the forcible seizure of our concession, we were still negotiating. All this had happened after Sir Miles Lampson’s conversations with Mr Chen. It was easy for the Opposition to say that the risk must not be overrated, but would Mr Trevelyan feel as happy if his wife were in Shanghai, or if he were there himself. Every Power had taken precautions, but Britain was in a sp dal position. The whole drive during the last two years had been against Britain, and she could not wait till the danger was at the gates. After outlining the negotiations till Mr Chen broke them off on February O because Britain had decided to negotiate on the same terms with the Government at Peking, Sir Austen Chamberlain said that Mr O'Malley and Mr Chen had now reached a point in tho negotiations where, in regard to the Concession, they were in agreement. The conditions included one that the Concession which was at present being administered by a Chinese Commission should be returned to the British Municipal Council which would then be formaly handed over to a new Chino-British municipality elected by the ratepayers. Thus the Chinee would have the same rights as the British subjects. Britain was prepared to assure Mr Chen that she would do all in her power to ensure the successful operation of the agreement. Mr Chon was prepared to give an assurance that all the outstanding questions between the Nationalists and the foreign Powers should be settled by negotiation and also that the Nationalists would not use force or countenance its use for the purpose of changing the status of the Concession and the International Settlement. Referring to the troop movements Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the Government could not take out of the hands of men on the spot the responsibility for the safety of the lives of our nationals in Shanghai for which it had been advised additional troops were necessary. The Government was prepared to accept an agreement between Mr O'Malley and Mr Chen with Mr Chen's assurance, hut it reserved the right to lake measures to protect British lives and interests. In order to remove any impression _ that the troops were going to Shanghai for any purpose except to protect British lives and interests, Sir Austen Chamberlain declared that the Goverrtment had never contemplated the use of troops for any other purpose and would land only such as were necessary. These would be stationed in the settlement and would not be moved outside except in the case of a grave emergency. “We will continue to observe a strict neutrality with regard to China’s civil war,’’ he said. “The troops from India will bo landed at Shanghai. This we are advised is immediately necessary to safeguard British life, but the troops coming from the Mediterranean and England will be concentrated at Hongkong and will only go to Shanghai if they arc required by the urgency of a fresh or greater danger.’’ , Replying to Mr Macdonald, Sir Austen Chamberlain added that his whole object was to remove apprehension in cerj ■ », o”':rteis in China as to the purpose of sending forces or what they were to be used for. His words had been telegraphed to Mr O'Malley for communication to Mr Chen. “I cannot predict tho future because the course of negotiations is always uncertain. 1 hesitated to say as much as I have done in the House of Commons for fear of giving offence to Mr Chen, who will_ not yet have received our communications, b u t I believe that peace is secure and that a new and bettor understandhig ot British aims will spread among the Chinese.” MR MOSLEY’S OUTBURST. Mr Oswald .Mosley (Lab.) said ho hoped that the Government would _ not approach the Chinese negotiations in a spirit of bargaining. It was time that Britain substituted the policy of a great nation for the policy of a pawnbroker. “If we must scuttle’ let us with dignity. Wo have pursued a policy in China conceived in arrqgance and conducted in panic.’’ He instanced the unnecessary despatch of troops. THE DEBATE CONCLUDED. Sir Alfred Mond (Lib.), : aid he did not understand why .he Labourites a.l-

ways assumed that their own fallowed) ntrymeu were wrong and their lives valueless. The amendment invited a massacre of Britishers, and it ought to bo withdrawn. Dr Haden Guest (Lab.) said he could not support the amendment. No Opposition ought to ask the to withdraw troops which had been requested by their advisers on the spot. This demand only came from a section of the Labour Party. Mr Macdonald, summing up on behalf of the Opposition, said ne hoped that the effect and opportunities of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech would be dulv weighed in Hankow. The Labour Party’s position was clear. There was no dispute about the negotiations. The division was- upon the despatch of troops. The Government’s policy began with defence, but it was bound to end with offence. The Government had taken as a first step what ought to have been the last. Mr G. Locker Lampson (Under- Secretary for Home Affairs), closing the debate, said that the cause of the present ferment waa the spread of the national desire to free China from foreign control. It was a genuine movement, although outside influences had intervened and were using it for their own purposes. There was no Chinese Government at presnl able to guarantee the safety of the British residents. Directly it was clear that there was no further risk the troops would be recalled. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. Mr Baldwin, replying to Mr E. Thnrtie (Lab.), said that there wore 0300 British residents in Shanghai. The total number of Britishers resident in Chinn was 15,247. It would not be in the public interest to give details of the armed British forces in Shanghai available for the defence of the settlement. The troops would not be used unless an attack was made on British lives. If anyone was going to attack the foreigners in Shanghai it was not desirable that they should know too many details of the defences. Sir L. Wort.hington-Evans (Minister of War) informed Mr G. M. Gillett (Lab.) that the estimated cost of transporting the troops to China was £645,000. Mr R. Y. K. Applin (Con.) : “Are the troops now en route more than sufficient for the effective defence of the Shanghai front of 16 miles?” The Minister: “I think not. —A. ana N.Z. Cable. GENERAL CHANG’S ARMY. ADVANCING SOUTHWARD. ANTI-BOLSHEVIST CRUSADE. LONDON, February 10. A Japanese message from Hankow states that Chang Tso-lin’s forces are moving southwards along four routs. A message from Peking states that Marshal Chang Tso-lin has circularised his generals and Allies saying that General Feng Yu-hsiang and Chiang Kai-shek had Bolshevised China with the support of Soviet Russia, and various places had suffered the ravages of hostilities. The people of Honan and Hupeh had urged him to despatch troops to help to rid them of the rods, but, owing to Honan being under the control of General Wu Pei-fu, who refused all offers of help, he could not comply. Wu Pei-fu, however, was unable to repulse his enemies, who w r ere gradually gaining power. He therefore was compelled to order his troops to charge down upon the enemyin order to recapture the Wuhan district, and further advance on Honan and Canton. He will regard Wu Pei-fu’s troops stationed at Honan as friendly if they act in concert with him, but if they oppose his armies he will subjugate them. —A. and N.Z. Cable. WARSHIPS FOR CHINA. MALTA, February ?'J. The gunboats Aphis and Ladybird and the destroyers Wanderer'and Wolverine have left for China. —A. and N.Z. Cable ATTITUDE OF CANADA. PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT DESIRED. OTTAWA, February 10. “Under the present conditions the Government feels that no useful purpose would be served by the despatch of Canadian troops to China,” the Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons today. He said that if the circumstances changed the Government would probably consult Parliament in regard to Canada’s policy. He said that Canada was in full sympathy with the British Government’s desire to secure a peaceful settlement. It also fully sympathised with China’s desire to control her own destiny. Only one Canadian had been killed in all the years of civil war. Canada had had no part in the shaping of the British policy or in acquiring rights and privileges in China. ■—A. and N.Z. Cable. DEFINING CHINA’S POSITION. GENEVA, February 10. (Received Feb. 11, at 11.30 p.m.) It is understood that the Chinese delegate, Mr Chu, who is all in bed, has drafted a long memorandum to the League setting out China’s position in the present trouble. —A. and N.Z. Cable. AMERICAN MARINES ARRIVE. PEKING, February 10. (Received Feb. 11, at 11 p.m.) Two hundred and fifty American marines have arrived at Shanghai from Manila on board the transport Pecos. —A. and N.Z. Cable. AUSTRALIANS VOLUNTEER REJECTED BY GOVERNMENT NO CALL FOR TROOPS. (From Ouh Own Correspondent . SYDNEY, February 4. The delicate position of the dominions in regard to the sending of British troops to China has been the subject of more than one meeting of the Federal Cabinet. Ministers, including the Acting Prime Minister (Dr Earle Page), have made ft quite clear that no request for troops or warships for China has been made by the British Government, nor, they say, has the Australian Government offered any. As much resentment as support was aroused by a statement by the president of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Soldiers’ League (Lieut.-eolonel Hyman) a day after it was announced that Britain was sending the division of infantry, that Australian former soldiers were ready for service. But that Lieut.eolonel Hyman was supported is evidenced by the hundreds of letters which Federal Ministers have received from men and youths of all ares volunteering for China. Ministers passed the letters to the Acting Minister for Defence (Mr Mart) to answer until the latter rebelled under the mass of correspondence which faced him. Federal Ministers who were in Sydney this week awaiting Mr Bruce's arrival were disinclined to discuss a cable message, which pointed out that the statement was persistently cropping up in diplomatic and other circles that one of the Cantonese demands would be for absolute equality of their Nationals throughout the world, including the right to enter Australia with the same freedom as white foreigners. This, of course, would mean a threat against the White Australia policy, and hero, it is considered, this country is most concerned. The only definite statement on the point was that of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr Pratten), who said that the attitude of the Government had Ir;en laid down

many times, and that the Commonwealth, through Its immigration laws, had the unalienable light to control its c , own citizenship. s > Meanwhile, all sections of the Labour movement have begun a campaign against the sending of Australian forces. They have even gone so far as to threaten that if any attempt is made to do so, united action will be taken to bring about a general strike and to prevent any ship with troops or food, clothing, and munition supplies leaving Australia. Propaganda is also being spread by them for a "Hands off China" policy. Discussing what Australia's policy should be in the case of war with China or any other country, the Sydney Morning Herald says: "It is the simple fact that, whether we like it or not, the moment Great Britain declares war, or has war declared upon her, Australia is at war, too. And being at war she would have to participate in it. That is part of the price we have to pay for our Imperial partnership. True Australians glory in the privilege of that partnership, and be the price however high would pay it gladly. That would be the case in whatever circumstances Britain was involved, but in this particular case we do most sincerely believe that Australians would come forward themselves, and expect their Government to come forward as well, in support of a cause, which, while it may be principally Britain's, is yet Australia s, too."