The Daily News TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1933. CLOUDS IN THE EAST.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 September 1933, Page 6

The Daily News

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1933. CLOUDS IN THE EAST.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH, Currie Street. STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA. High Street.

The rumours of further trouble between the Russian Soviet and Japan over the Eastern Siberian Railway are somewhat disturbing. They come at a time when more cordial relations between Russia and both France and the United States are becoming possible. The Soviet is aware that Japan’s actions in Manchuria are causing world-wide anxiety, and it may be that closer relationships with countries that have hitherto held aloof from the Russian Bolshevik authorities has stiffened the opposition to Japanese penetration in Manchuria. As* a matter of history there is no country in the world that can raise objections to Japan’s protectorate of the new “State of Manchukuo” with less justification than Russia. The land upon which the railway Russia is now defending was built, the district it serves, and its terminal port were once a portion of the old Chinese Empire which Russia wrenched away because it suited her purpose a generation ago. The story of the bribery of Qhinese authorities and the duplicity and chicanery that accompanied the extension of the Russian railway enterprise through north-eastern Manchuria is one of which European diplomacy can never be proud. It is true that Rus-' sia’s action at the commencement of this century made progress possible in a country that, while full of potentialities, was practically undeveloped. That was Russia’s justification for the high-handed action taken with China over the territory required for railway purposes, for when bribery and corruption failed the Czar’s advisers had no hesitation in threatening seizure by force of the areas required. They claimed moreover that the territory in question was practically uncontrolled by the Chinese authorities, was over-run by bandits, and constituted an area in which neither the life nor the property of foreigners was safe. The reasons advanced by Russia a generation ago are precisely similar to those urged by Japan in. regard to her support of “Manchukuo.” She has the further reasons that for many years Japan has invested large, sums of money in Manchuria, that the need for an outlet for her ever-increasing population is greater than ever, and that Chinese control of that province is less effective than it was when Russia built the transSiberian railway. In theory the support by Japan of the State of Manchukuo is undoubtedly an interference with the sovereign rights of China. Japan retorts, with some pertinence, that the creation of a new republic in the Panama Canal zone was also an infringement of sovereign rights which did not prevent its approval and support by the United States. In regard to the Eastern China railway Japan has an additional reason to urge for interference. The management of the railway since Soviet rule has prevailed at Moscow has gone from bad to worse. It is the connecting link between huge inland areas and an ice-free port, but its efficacy as an agent in the development of those enormous districts has been limited first by the subordination of the railway to the military demands of the Czarist rule in Russia, and since then by the neglect and inefficiency brought about by Soviet control. It seemed likely a few months ago that Japan, in the name of the “State of Manchukuo,” might purchase the eastern section of the railway from Russia. That would have been a satisfactory way out of a deadlock, but apparently the Japanese recognise that they can seize the railway if they so desire, and they have declined the Soviet’s proposal to sell. The latest reports indicate a determination on the part of Russia to defend her interests in the railway by force if necessary. On the other hand, the history of diplomacy in Asia, especially between the interests of opposing Powers, is full of instances when proclaimed determination to resist to the full has been but the prelude to an understanding. For the sake of peace it is to be hoped that such is the position in regard to the Manchurian railway. Japan has risked a good deal for the carrying out of her policy in Korea and Manchuria, ft is not likely she will tolerate interference with its progress by threats from Russia, or by inefficiency in a transport service that could be made of tremendous value to Japan’s latest protectorate. It is generally admitted that Japanese control in the Korean and Manchurian

provinces has led to greater progress in a generation than had been known for centuries. That, and the retort that she has but followed the example of other Powers, is Japan’s justification for what is admittedly interference with sovereign rights.