MANCHURIAN DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21829, 16 December 1932, Page 13

MANCHURIAN DISPUTE

THE LYTTON REPORT WAR IN DISGUISE PROPOSALS FOR A SETTLEMENT. fFaoir Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, October 7. The report of the League of Nations Commission of Enquiry into the position in Manchuria, which has now been issued at Genova, is a volume-of 139 printed pages. Lord Lytton and his colleagues point out that the “ issues represented in this conflict are not as simple as they are represented to be.” The first eight chapters are largely historical. The dispute has arisen (the report says) between two States, both members of the League, concerning a territory the size of Franco and Germany combined, in which both claim to have rights and interests, only some of which are defined by international law; a territory which, although legally an integral part of China, had a sufficiently autonomous character to carry on direct negotiations with Japan on the matters which lay at the root of this conflict. Japan controls the railway and strip of territory running from the sea right up into the heart of Manchuria, and she maintains for the protection of that property a force of about 10,000 soldiers, which she claims the right by treaty to increase, if necessary, up to 15,000. She also exercises the right of jurisdiction over all her subjects in Manchuria, and maintains consular police throughout the country. It is a fact that, without declaration of war, a large area of what was indisputably Chinese territory has been forcibly seized and occupied by the armed forces of Japan and has, in consequence of this operation, been separated from and declared independent of the rest of China. The main proposals for a settlement are as follow : China’s sovereignty in Manchuria to be maintained, but the province to have a special administration, with a large measure of autonomy; Japan, although denied political or economic control in Manchuria, to have in practice, through advisers and the like, a big hand in the country’s administration, and to enjoy far-reaching rights, including an extension of the whole area of the right for Japanese to settle and lease land;

TROOPS TO BE WITHDRAWN. Japanese and Chinese troops to be withdrawn as soon as an effective gendarmerie, with a foreigner at its head, has been organised. A treaty of non-aggression to be concluded by the countries interested (including Russia). China to reserve control of foreign relations, Customs, Post Office, and the salt taxes, and to appoint at least the first chief executive of the Manchurian Government. The railway question to be settled by a working agreement, or an amalgamation of. the Chinese and Japanese railway interests. It is proposed that, if the two countries agree to a settlement on these lines, the League should call a conference in which they and the Chinese and Japanese populations of Manchuria will be represented. If the countries agree, neutral observers would be present. It is suggested that the two Powers should agree that Manchuria should become a demilitarised area. If Government desires to participate in this understanding the appropriate clauses dealing with non-aggression and mutua assistance would be embodied in a scpaiate agreement. The commercial treaty should ami at encouraging the exchange of goods between China and Japan, while safeguarding the existing treaty rights of other countries. It should also contain an undertaking by the Chinese Govcramcnt to repress boycotts against JapanesREVIEW OF THE POSITION. The report upon which these proposals •u-e based opens with an outline of icceat , . , •, pi,inn The dominating developments in emua. . , i factor in China to-day, it states is t modernisation of the nation itself. H--commission see in international co-o uation the surest aiul niost rap.d UMes towards the attaining of the national id Chapter II reviews the position of Manchuria from both the lustorica a economic standpoint. . ; Chanter 111, the longest chaptei in the report, is devoted to Manchurian issues between China and . trices the claim of Japanese public opm ioii that the resources, actual and potentin), of Manchuria arc essential to tn economic life of Japan. Events in Manchuria on and since September 18, 1931. arc described m chanter 4. It gives both Japanese and Chinese versions of the ! in . " " Pen and since, and shows that, m mo opinion of the commission, the Japanese military operations “ cannot be regarded as measures of legitimate self-defence. The commission do not, hov, c\ cr, c

elude the hypothesis that the officers on the spot might have thought they were acting in self-defence. “The fighting has been constant and widely dispersed,” the report says. “It lias been the practice of the Japanese to describe indiscriminately as bandits all the forces now opposed to them. There are, in fact, two distinct categories of organised resistance to the Japanese troops or to those of * Manchukuo ’ — namely, the regular and the irregular Chinese troops.” NEW JAPANESE STATE. The fighting in Shanghai, in which 24,000 were killed, missing, or wounded, is described in chapter 5, together with the bombardment of Nanking on February .1, 1932. This is said to have been due possibly to the firing of crackers by the Chinese population. Chapter 0 deals with “ Manchukuo ” —the new Japanese State in Manchuria. It is significant that “ Manchukuo ” is always mentioned in the report in quotation marks. The commission hold, in the first place, that the present regime cannot be considered to have been called into existence by a genuine and spontaneous independence movement. They state that the programme of the “ Government ” contains a number of liberal reforms, but there is no hidication that the Government will in fact be able to carry out many of these reforms. Further, they say that there is no general Chinese support for the “ Manchukuo Government,” which is regarded by local Chinese as an instrument of the Japanese. TERRITORY FORCIBLY SEIZED. “ It is as necessary for China to satisfy the economic interests of Japan in this territory,” the commission say, “ as for Japan to recognise the unalterable Chinese character of the population. It is a fact that without declaration of war, a largo area of what was indisputably Chinese territory has been forcibly seized and occupied by the armed forces of Japan, and has, in consequence of this operation, been separated from and declared independent of the rest of China. “ The permanent separation of these provinces from the rest of China, either politically or actually,” the commission add, “would be to create for the future a serious irredentist problem which would injure peace by keeping alight the hostility of China, and rendering probable the continued boycott of Japanese goods.” The Council of the League will discuss the report some time in November. It must, of course, be emphasised that the commission is purely a League of Nations body, and that its views do

not implicate the individual countries represented on it. CRUX OF THE QUESTION. “This plan, obviously,” comments the Morning Post, “is intended to supersede the State of Manchukuo, which, from the point of view of the commission, has the decisive disadvantage that it is not based on the recognition of the sovereignty of China. The ex-Em-peror Pu-Yi would doubtless retort that he has a much stronger historical claim to Manchuria than the Chinese Republic, since the territory belonged, time out of mind, to his dynasty, and only became Chinese by virtue of the fact that the Manchus became Emperors of China. , As for the wishes of the Chinese population of the three provinces, the Lytton Commission appears to be confident that they favour China. We confess to some modest doubts on that subject, since many of these Chinese emigrants fled to the north of the G reat Wall in order to escape from the anarchy now reigning in China. Here, as it seems to us, we come to the crux of the question. The commission admits that a strong central government in China is essential to its scheme, and that such a Government does not at_ present exist. It asserts, rather optimistically, that China is a ‘nation in evolution,’ and that her ‘ political upheavals, social disorder, and disruptive tendencies ’ are ‘ inseparable from a period of transition.’ But how can we be certain either of the * evolution ’ or of the ‘ transition ’ ? China was united by the Manchus as India was united by the British, and may be, now that the Manchu Empire has gone, in a process, not of evolution, but of dissolution.”