POLICY CHANGE DENIED

Southland Times, Issue 23888, 5 August 1939, Page 7

POLICY CHANGE DENIED

SIGNING OF FORMULA WITH JAPAN AGGRESSIVE ACTION NOT CONDONED (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, August 3. The Far East came under review in a speech which the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, delivered in the House of Lords in replying to the debate on foreign affairs opened by Lord Snell, the Labour peer. Lord Halifax said that it had been suggested in several speeches that the formula recently signed with Japan committed Britain to a fundamental change of policy—that Britain had, by signing the formula, recognized a state of belligerency in China, that she had acted in a spirit contrary to her obligations Under the League resolutions, that she had endangered the NinePower Treaty and, generally, that she had condoned the actions she had previously condemned. “I wish to say quite plainly that, in my judgment, those who take that sort of line ignore the plain terms of the formula and the interpretation Britain herself has placed upon it,” he said. “The general consideration that I would ask should be kept in mind is that Japan never asked Britain to reverse her general policy nor could Britain do so if she were asked. I can assure Lord Cecil that I am not unmindful of any obligation whatever, whether to the Nine-Power Treaty or to League of Nations resolutions and that there is no intention that Britain should disregard British interests in China or disregard Britain’s obligations to third Powers. All that we have done by this formula is to state the facts as they seem to us and to attempt, in a practical fashion, to deal with the background against which the situation in Tientsin has unfortunately arisen.” Lord Halifax said that nothing Britain had done and nothing she would do could, by any reasonable construction, be taken as condoning aggressive action. Britain’s policy in the Far East was an endeavour to do two things—to see whether Britain could assist in promoting a settlement fair to all interests concerned and, from the more narrow point of view of the interest of Britain herself, to work for such goodwill as would not impair her relations with China or Japan if such impairment could be avoided. So far as her relations with Japan were concerned, success in maintaining goodwill did not depend entirely on Britain. It depended also on Japan. Lord Halifax mentioned the interests of America and France. The genera] aims and objects of the three governments were closely similar and Britain was alive to the importance of collaboration with France and America whenever collaboration was possible. Britain had never failed to keep those governments informed of her intentions or actions. COMMERCIAL TREATY “I do not say that we shall necessarily do the same thing in the same way at the same time,” he said. “America’s denunciation of the commercial treaty with Japan is a case in point. I can. very well conceive circumstances under which Britain may wish to give notice of her intention to denounce her commercial treaty with Japan but, as Mr Chamberlain said on Monday, that is a matter which will require the most careful consideration and regarding which an exchange of views with the Dominions will be eneessary. I would not wish to say more on that subject.” Lord Halifax said that, while Britain had never acquiesced in Japanese action in China and was bound to consider Britain’s own interests, she had always been fully prepared to recognize the special interest of Japan in China because of her geographical and economic situation.

Before leaving the question of the Far East, Lord Halifax said that the Government felt it the duty of responsible persons everywhere to keep clearly in front of them the real goal, which was to try to bring about a just and amicable settlement of the present dispute. He added that it was true that Britain was not in a position to police the Far East, but she was in a position to act as mediator and the Government would be ready when the opportunity came to tender its good offices if they could be usefully employed. “On the eve of adjourning I cannot encourage anyone to feel complacent about the international situation,” he said. “That would not be >n accordance with facts and possibilities as we believe them to exist today. Indeed, it may be that the next few weeks or months may prove critical. Britain’s policy is, I hope, sufficiently clear and so generally accepted that I need not recapitulate it. I myself tried to define it in a speech something over a month ago. To that speech I have nothing to add and I certainly have nothing to withdraw from it. We have tried to make the position of this country crystal clear. We have no aggressive designs. Our alliances and understandings are not framed with any aggressive intent.

“It only remains for us to keep calm as far as we may, to be united, to avoid exaggerated attention to rumour and to be neither over-confident nor too pessi-

mistic,” he concluded. “A united nation which knows exactly where it stands and knows itself to be strong can meet the future, whatever it may hold, with confidence.”