THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1933. THE RUSSO-JAPANESE DISPUTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21940, 29 April 1933, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1933. THE RUSSO-JAPANESE DISPUTE.

It was almost inevitable that the relations between Japan and Soviet Russia should sooner or later become strained as a result of the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria. Russia has considerable interests in this territory, the railway connections being of particular importance to her. In the extensive communication system of the country the Chinese Eastern Railway is of especial strategic value, and it is controlled by the Soviet. It is less remarkable that a dispute concerning the Chinese Eastern Railway should now have occurred than that some such quarrel has not developed in the past. The Soviet Government had appeared until recently to regard the Japanese activity in Manchuria with a good deal of unconcern, its policy being described by an observer as “ pacific, judicial, and purely defensive.” Encroachments by Japan into areas of Northern Manchuria which had long been recognised as spheres of Russian influence were politely tolerated, and the Soviet even permitted the transportation of Japanese troops over the Chinese Eastern Railway. Such amicability, at least as it appeared on the surface, was too gooa to last, and the Soviet Government has commenced to exhibit a lively interest in the Japanese seizure of Manchuria. The object which Japan seems to have in view has been by no means finally achieved by her establishment of the State of Manchukuo, which is virtually a province of hers. Manchuria has been comparatively quiescent in the grip of a severe winter, but the effectiveness of Japanese control will have to be proven when the spring ushers in the normal fighting season in this huge area. It may be suspected that the Soviet Government will not be content to permit Japan calmly to consolidate her position in Manchuria. It is highly unlikely, for example, that Russia will cede the Chinese Eastern Railway, unless possibly for some substantial consideration, yet Japan is quite plainly endeavouring to assert her influence in the area which this railway serves. The actual responsibility for the present dispute concerning the railway is somewhat obscure. The Soviet Government complains that the authorities in Manchukuo—that is, the Japanese—have seized railway property, maltreated Russian railway officials, and failed to pay for the transport of Japanese troops. The Japanese Government asserts that the Soviet has withdrawn half the rolling stock of the Chinese Eastern into Russia. It is claimed that Manchukuo is entitled to an equal share with Russia in the management of the railway. The possibility of the seizure of the railway by Japan is suggested by the most recent developments. Such an action would, from the Japanese viewpoint, constitute a logical step in the occupation of Manchuria, but it would also be dangerously provocative. There can be no doubt that the situation is somewhat delicate. It serves to emphasise both the determination of Japan in her Manchurian aspirations and the dangers of rousing other fqrces than .those of the Chinese through an apparently deliberate programme of territorial aggrandisement.