PACIFIC AND THE FAR EAST.

Otago Witness, Issue 3833, 30 August 1927, Page 5

PACIFIC AND THE FAR EAST.

PROBLEMS AWAITING SOLUTION. ADDRESS BY PROFESSOR BLAKESLEE.

Dr G. H. Blakeslee, Professor of History and International Relations at the Clark University, Massachusetts, and visiting Carnegie professor of international relations, was the guest of the University Club at luncheon at 1 p.m. on Monday week last. There was a large attendance, and the chair was occupied by Mr Tonkinson (president of the club). Professor Blakeslee, who gave an address on "‘Honolulu and Problems of the Pacific and Far East,” said, With the exception of Dunedin, he considered Honolulu the loveliest place in the world. In Honolulu the Institute of Pacific Relations held, its conference for three weeks. In the school building 150 Japanese, Americans, New Zealanders, Australians, Chinese, and Britishers lived together as one big family. One feature of the conference was that the groups, unlike those

at a diplomatic conference, did not live apart from each other. For three weeks these people came to be very well acquainted with one another, and earned mutual respect, admiration, and affection That made it possible for round-table ’discussions on the outstanding problems of the Pacific in a frank and friendly way They would find British representatives on one side of the table and Chinese on the other, while Japanese and Americans would be discussing the insult which America was charged with making against Japan by the passage of the Immigration Act in 1924. All the Chinese and Japanese delegates could speak English, and many of them could speak it better than our own people. The Chinese dele gates were representative of modern nationalistic China, and some of them were real powers in the great movement which was taking place in that ountry at present. The Japanese delegation included a number of outstanding business men and four professors from the Imperial University of Japan. The chief difference in the groups at Honolulu thif year, as compared with two years ago, was in the British group. The institute arose from the idea of the advisability and helpfulness of getting together representative men from the different countries which were specifically “pacific.” The word “pacific”, did not mean pacifism, but the peoples bounded by the Pacific Ocean. It had led to a great deal of difficulty, and possibly the name would be changed The British dominions, the United States, China, and Japan were initially invited to send delegates to a conference two years ago, and when discussions had taken place it became apparent that one of the most essential factors was to obtain the point of view of the people who came from Great Britain and not the point of views of Australia, New Zealand, or Canada. The Royal Institute of International Affairs was asked to send a group of delegates, and it sent perhaps *he ablest group at Honolulu. Mr Lionel Curtis, now the real head of the Roval Institute of International Relations ’n London, was present, and there were some interesting younger men. New Zealand ■was very well represented by Professor Condliffe, who was now director of research for the whole Pacific. Sir James Allen was unable to go. and he asked Mr Nash, secretary of the Labour Party, to attend Mr Nash officiallv presented the view’s of New Zealand, and explained whv New Zealand favoured the Singapore base, although he said afterwards that he was opiKised to it himself. A question might be asked as to the good of this kind of thing. One man had stated his conviction that the great problems in international relations were going to Le the problems of the Pacific, and the Far East, and not those of Europe, and that was why he was proceeding from England to the meeting of the Institute of Pacific Relations in ITono lulu. At the same time he pointed out the great sacrifice in time and money that was involved, as Honolulu was fust about the most remote snot on the elobe to get to from London. Two days after the meeting was over the same gentleman made a speech in which he said that the In stitute of Pacific Relations was the first significant group of the peoples of the world for the accomplishment of inter national aims, and that it gave promise of being one of the. most effective agencies in the world for the betterment of international relations. After the close of the meeting he (Dr Blakeslee) had called or< one of the Chinese, who, with a little reluctance, spoke of the spiritual value of the conference. It was sipiritual in its proper sense and not in its religious sense, and pave promise as showing that the people from the white countries were liberal-minded and wanted to do the square thing in settling difficulties with the people of the Orient. The Chinese representative to whom he had just referred had a new book on the stocks, and in one chapter he made a pretty vitriolic attack on certain nations, but after he had become acquainted with the people it the conference and had found that they wanted to do the square thing be set to work to withdraw what he had written. The first effect of such a conference was the finding of actual facts instead of relying on prejudice, and the next was to find the points of view of the different countries. The point of view of the people was usually of more importance than the question of who was right and who was wrong in a particular occurrence, and on that account the gathering of representative men was valuable, not only in getting the facts, but in studying the point of view and the attitudes of the different nations. When these representative men got together and descussed various matters they delimited their differences, and by an exchange of views saw how, in many cases, it was possible to come to a better

understanding. They believed that that had been accomplished. Two years ago the big issue at Honolulu was the immigration question. Some months later they learned in the United States that although the Japanese group did not approve of what the United States had done they had come to understand the difficulties of the situation in America and the genuine goodwill and desire on the part of nine-tenths of the American group to meet the situation. The result was that they told their own Government, that it was bad policy and would not accomplish anything to keep on stressing the immigration question. The Japanese Government then dropped the immigration issue, and it had not been revived since.

The outstanding problems discussed at the conference this year were China, Manchuria, and Japan. China was at present, going through an intellectual and political renaissance and an industrial and political revolution. He believed that China was trying to do in a few years what it had taken Europe 100 years to do. Politically the Chinese had their own civil war, but in certain respects China had never been more united than she was at present. The Chinese were making certain vigorous demands from the three Powers particularly interested in China—Great Britain, Japan, and the United States—and these Powers were willing to grant the demands in a large part, judging from the expressions of opinion at Honolulu. If the Chinese delegation and the other delegations had held a diplomatic conference they could have settled these questions. The Governments did not settle them because China had no Government with which they could deal. There was no one Government representative of the Chinese, and the three Governments would not appoint delegates to meet on a central commitee so that the matter could be discussed, the result being that nothing could be done Any delay on the part of the Powers would increase the Bolshevist element in China, and they’ could be perfectly well assured that the Chinese generally were exceedingly apprehensive of the danger from that quarter. Delay increased the faction in China which wished to “scrap” all the treaties with foreign Powers. If China “scrapped” all her treaties with foreign Powers and then attempted to have an international settlement there would be increased trouble. The problem would be settled some day, but he would not attempt to offer a solution.

There was the situation in Manchuria, regarding which the Chinese and Japanese were very reluctant to discuss at Honolulu, and which was the most dangerous situation in the world. There was a section which believed that there would be war between Russia and Japan within the next decade or two. There were three great Powers China, . Russia, and Japan—which had economic and political aims, which threatened to lead to a head-on collision. The contest would primarily be over the control of railroads and through them with a series of interests in Manchuria. The situation . was much the same as that which existed before the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05. It was very difficult to present the situation without giving the impression that there was an approaching danger of war. It was hoped, and it was possible, that the situaion would be straightened out bv negotiations, but they would have to be tactful, and there would have to be conciliation on both sides. Difficult as, the situation was in Manchuria, he thought that most members of the conference realised the almost impossible economic situation in which Japan found herself. Japan, which had a population of about 60,000,000, had four people to every 'acre of arable land, and the population was increasing at the rate of 700,000 a year. The Japanese found it impossible to extend very much the production from the land. Even if they were able to go to Australia, New Zealand, or America, they could not transport their people to these places. “Our best thinkers,” said Professor Blakeslee, “have put the danger of a war with Japan practically out of mind ; but the only way in which Japan can meet the terrific problem of disposing of her population is by a solution of the economic position in China. Japan has to provide for 700,000 additional people every year, and it appears that it is not possible to increase the national wealth proportionately While the -population increase will fall off in years to come, it will not fall off very rapidly. “In the Pacific and Far East all the political and social disturbance is fundametally a conflict between the two great powerful branches of the human race—the Chinese and. Japanese and the whites in the dominions and the United States. If there is a great problem in the world which needs tact, conciliation, and human sympathy, it is in seeing how these two .great branches can live together in a world which is constantly getting smaller.” On the motion of Mr W. J. Morrell, Professor Blakeslee was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his address. *