The Daily News FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1931. THE MANCHURIAN CRISIS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1931, Page 6

The Daily News FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1931. THE MANCHURIAN CRISIS.

The .Council of the League of Nations has had its special session to deal with the trouble between Japan and China in Manchuria, the representatives of the two nations have been' heard, and the president has stated that the next meeting of the Council will be announced later. It is to be supposed that the Council meanwhile will deliberate upon the statements made before it, though it is difficult to regard them as very helpful. Through its spokesman, Dr. Sze, China has complained of acts of violence on the part of-Japan and “entrusted its case entirely to the League.” Mr. Yoshizawa’s reply on behalf of. Japan is to the effect that his country has no territorial pretensions in Manchuria, but merely desires to protect its troops and its nationals against unwarranted attacks by Chinese and to put an end to a troublesome situation. If the cablegram has done justice to Mr. Yoshizawa’s address it can only be regarded as highly significant that he offered no expression of readiness to accept the League’s mediation. The Japanese Government, he declared, was entirely prepared to begin direct negotiations with the Chinese Government. The Japanese Government was “strongly disposed” to withdraw its troops as soon as security was “really assured,” but the Chinese Government should make an effort to stop the antiJapanese campaign.. Obviously the Council of the League faces an extremely difficult situation. When China professes complete reliance on the League and expresses her belief that the League will be able to “safeguard peace jjp the Far East” she says nothing about stopping what Japan calls the anti-Japanese campaign. Is it possible that China has no wish to cease annoying Japan in Manchuria, but rather hopes to be able to do so under cover of the League’s protection? Does Japan mean it to be understood that, though she is,quite willing to be polite to the League, she intends in the long run to make her own terms with China? If so the League’s position is decidedly invidious, and the case may become one for severe disciplinary action. This would not mean that' the League would utilise arms to enforce its-will upon the disputants, the proviso in Article xvi. of the Covenant being that if any member of the League disregards the terms of its compact the .other members “hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations” and prevent “all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse” between themselves and the nationals of the recalcitrant State. It is curious to recall that Japan’s excuse for military action is that the Chinese have employed the trade boycott against her in Manchuria, her claim being that this attitude really amounts to an act of war. The League Covenant, however, clearly differentiates between the trade boycott and warlike action, and it must therefore be presumed that the Council will be unable to find justification in the pretext advanced by Japan. Short of taking action to discipline the offender there appears to be little the Council can dp beyond making an effort to act as arbitrator in negotiations between the two Governments, and even that would be a very difficult task. China is very jealous of her position in the three provinces of Manchuria, which in recent years have given promise of exceedingly profitable development. The growth of the Chinese agricultural population has been very rapid, and farming has made very substantial progress. There are great resources of minerals and timber’ to be exploited, and China evidently is afraid that Japan may try to .rob her of these. But under very precise treaties Japan was given considerable privileges in Manchuria,

her nationals being entitled to certain rights of settlement and having received substantial railway concessions. Japan no longer hopes to bestow a large surplus of population in Manchuria, but she looks for great commercial advantages through her influence in the railway zone. If she and China could come to a reasonable arrangement based on mutual respect there would be room for both of them in Manchurian territory, and they would be safeguards for each other against the undoubted menace of Soviet aggression. All the other nations which are interested in the Near East are, of course, concerned with this aspect of the relations between China and Japan as well as with the tension prevailing throughout China because of the disturbances in Manchuria, the direct result of which has been turmoil on the Yangtse and friction in the treaty ports. It is to be hoped there is more than rumour behind the report that reconciliation between Canton and Nanking is likely, for this would enormously strengthen China, even though Canton if, as is suggested, it became predominant should try to press its anti-foreign views. A really united China would be able to dispose of its own internal troubles and then would be more likely to command the respect of its neighbours than it is to-day.