The Daily News WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1931. CURBING JAPAN.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 January 1932, Page 6

The Daily News WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1931. CURBING JAPAN.

A month ago the outlook in Manchuria seemed brighter than it had been for some time. The Japanese Government appeared to be disposed to accept the restraint which the League of Nations desired to exercise; Japanese troops had been withdrawn from Chinchow, and something in the way of negotiation was going on between Japan and China with a view to the establishment of a neutral zone from Mukden to the Manchurian frontier as a buffer between Chinese and Japanese forces. There has, however, been little result from these hopeful movements. Japan is now in possession of Chinchow, the League of Nations has appointed a commission of inquiry into the difficulties between China and Japan, and the United States, which of course is outside the League, has deemed it necessary to remind Japan of her obligations towards other foreign Powers which have interests in. Chinese territory. As a means of putting a curb on Japanese aggression the . United States has invoked the Nine Power Treaty, drawn up at the Washington Conference in 1922 with the object of safeguarding the rights held by foreign nations in China. The nine signatories are Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United States, Japan and China. They agreed to the maintenance of the “open door” commercial policy throughout China, and the eight foreign Powers bound themselves to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial and administrative integrity of China. As a signatory to the treaty the United States now employs it as a reminder to Japan of the duty she undertook ten years ago. The disturbance 5 in Manchuria has already affected American lives and property, and the United States is entitled to claim that they shall be safeguarded, and also to warn Japan against aggressive action of a nature likely to prejudice the rights of all the foreign Powers that enjoy concessions in Chinese territory. It may, however, be questioned whether the Nine Power Treaty is likely to prove an efficient instrument in the circumstances that have arisen. Article 3 provides that foreign Powers shall not seek “any arrangement which might purport to establish in favour of their interests any general superiority of rights with respect to commercial or economic benefit in any designated region of China,” and Article 5 forbids China to exercise unfair discrimination of any kind in respect of railway concessions. These two articles probably have some bearing upon the present dispute, and there certainly appears to be danger of an 'infringement of Article 3 in Japan’s recent action. This is indicated by the report that the British Government has not deemed it necessary to send a Note to Japan, but is content to request from the Japanese Ambassador in London confirmation of his country’s assurances regarding the “open door” policy. That is, in point of fact, about all that Britain can usefully do, for the treaty contains no sanctions, the signatories having been content to rely on international good faith as the means of enforcement. Article 7, the only one bearing on this point, provides that where an infringement is supposed to have taken place full and frank communication between the signatories shall follow. The Washington Conference passed a resolution recommending the establishment in China of a board to which disputes under the treaty might be referred, but there has been no development on those lines. In the absence of means of enforcing the treaty the American Note would seem be merely an appeal to Japan’s reason and goodwill, but in view of her international relations over a long period of years it must’ be conceded that the Japanese have been scrupulous in honouring their obligations. Moreover, they have themselves insisted that whatever action they have taken of late in Mqnchuria has been no more than a necessary defence of their treaty rights. If they thus maintain the sanctity of the treaty on their own account they cannot well refuse to" listen to the representations of those who have similar rights and desire equally efficient safeguards. Up till the present Japan certainly has shown no disposition to submit gracefully to such measures of intervention as the League of Nations has seen fit to take. She may have no difficulty in justifying her attitude. The Moscow Government has for the past year or two shown a good deal of activity in Manchuria, no doubt with the traditional idea of securing an ice-free port in the East. It is suggested that its emissaries have been behind the brigandage of the Chinese war lords in Manchuria and China proper and that no real peace and settlement in either country are possible whilst the Bolsheviks have so much influence with the Chinese. If this is so, Japan’s vigorous action in assertion of her rights is understandable. So is Britain’s decision to remain benevolently neutral. In any ease, the United"States’ intervention is not dictated by altogether unselfish

motives. She has never been quite fair to the Japanese, who have proved very loyal allies of Britain in her hour of need. This, no doubt, is fully recognised by British statesmen. Events of the past ten years have proved conclusively that left to themselves —and the Russian Bolsheviks — the Chinese cannot manage their own affairs, let alone the affairs of Manchuria, to which they have less title than the Japanese, and if the latter can bring about order and peace in Manchuria they are conferring a real blessing upon the world. They might render a similar service next by wielding the big stick over the Chinese war lords in China itself, though such intervention would probably bring down upon them the righteous wrath of virtuous nations like the United States.