JAPAN AND THE PROTOCOL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17347, 30 September 1924, Page 11

JAPAN AND THE PROTOCOL.

CRISIS AT GENEVA. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright Anatrali&n and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON. September 29. The Central News Geneva correspondent says that the French representatives, M. Loueheur and M. Briand. conferred at length with Baron Adatcbi with a view t-o obtaining a modification of Japan's attitude on the Arbitration Protocol, but he was adamant and continued to threaten that Japan would not sign. All the newspaper correspondents emphasise the seriousness of the position which Japan has created and admit that, without Japan’s signature. the Procotol will be useless and thaT The efforts of M. Herriot and Mr MacDonald, in the direction of disarmament, will be frustrated.

Tho Geneva correspondent of the “ Daily Telegraph ” says the Japan ese did not oppose the ~ Procotol in committee and. therefore, it is believed that Baron Adatchi’s amendment is due to special instructions from Tokio The correspondent of tho “ Morning Post ” considers that Japanese amour propre has received hard knocks lately, particularly from the American exclusion Act. “ Devastated within and insulted abroad, ' he says, “ she is .ready to _ seize anything to restore her prestige, and satisfy public opinion. The other nations, realising this, are exerting g themselves to the utmost towards reaching a compromise, hut. so far. no progress has been .made. Japan unquestionably wants, sooner or later, to make the immigration question subject to compulsory arbitration, entailing a risk of war. This other nations, including Australia. whose internal policy would be the first affected, are opposing strongly on the ground that it. would bo an encroachment on their domestic sovereignty, opening the door to interference on all sorts of internal questions which would soon put an end to the League. The British attitude is most concise. She will refuse to sign the Procotol rather than give way on the principle of non-interference in domestic matters. ’’ POLICIES AT STAKE. Pydn«y Sun" Cabla. GENEVA, September 28. The Japanese situation still overshadows the League’s activities, j A lengthy conversation between M. : Bi’und and Viscount Isbii will probably j result in a conference between M. ; Hr i and, M. Loucheuv, Sir C. Hurst, Lord Parmoor, Viscount Ishii and | Baron Adatchi. I Sir L. Gioom. as chairman of the | First Committee, in which the dispute j originated, considers the Japanese ! amendment to Article 5 withdrawn | an-. 1 , therefore, beyond further discusl sion. ! Others hope for a settlement without j involving Japan’s withdrawal of her support of the Protocol. I ' Japan also desires to eliminate a I clause in Article 6 which declares: “ A j nation is the aggressor if it attacks any other nation over a matter which the International Court of Justice has ruled to be a domestic problem.” This proposal indicates Japan’s intention to avoid being named the aggressor in event of her attacking America over the exclusion of Japanese, or for interfering with internal affairs in China. The deletion of the clauses would allow Japan, in a dispute over the “ White Australia ” policy, to proceed to attack Australia without immediately becoming an aggressor, although the matter had been previously ruled by tho International Court os a domestic one and beyond the League’s interference. The Japanese now hint that unanimity will not prevail among British and dominions delegates owing to India’s antagonism to the “White Australia ” policy. Sir James Allen requested Dr Bones to explain the position of a nation not signing the Protocol, and pointed out that New Zealand wanted to know her position in the event of a refusal to i_>r Benes answered that the Protocol would not affect nations not signing. They would merely continue to be bound by the League’s Covenant. Previously Sir James Allen hart slightly amended the preamble to the Protocol, making less definite the Assembly’s request to members of the League to accept the Protocol. These, and also minor remarks, indicate that. New Zealand finds difficulty in acquiescing to the Protocol s demands and may refuse to sign.

HEATED INTERLUDES DURING DISCUSSION.

m«at«r'a TelMrrairc GENEVA, September 29. The First Committee, after a. prolonged and animated discussion, adopted the chairman's report on the judicial portion of the Protocol. An unexpected outcome was the Japanese exception to Article 6 (not 5), relating to the action of the Council dealing with an aggressor. Baron Adatchi read a declaration, on behalf of the Japanese delegation, the substance of which follows: “The ideal of the League is to settle pacifically all conflicts between nations The draft Protocol, however, does not make good the gaps in the Covenant in this connection, inasmuch as Article lo of the Covenant continues to permit a State to escape international investigation under the pretext that the matter is within its exclusive competence; even if the matter infringes the honour and prejudices the vital interests of another State. According to Article 7 of the Protocol, the League, while abstaining fTom lending its pacific action to a State wronged, threatens to consider that State an aggressor should it adopt measures for the defence of its legitimate interests. Thus, the draft Protocol would lead to the protection of a State which rejected the supremacy of international justice, and would condemn a State which simply asked for an impartial application

for justice. The Japanese delegation, which already has experienced gjeai difficulties in accepting Article lo of the Covenant, regrets it is unable to adhere to the illogical aggravation of the stipulation contained in Article 6 of the Protocol.” Dr Fernandoz (Brazil) said the amendment did not favour the attainment of the object the committee had in view, and therefore, he appealed for its withdrawal. The chairman, M. Politis (Greece), favoured the amendment, pointing out that there had been an exaggeration on both sides. The present wording of Article 6 was too-.rigid. M. Roll in (Belgium) declared that the amendment was not destructive. Each State had a right to settle its own disputes. There were several heated interludes in the course of the discussion, and Signor Scialoja (Italy) suggested the examination of the Protocol in a calmer atmosphere by a committee of experts. M. Loucbeur (Prance) declared that, if the Council did not do its duty, any provision in the Protocol would be vain. He proposed that the Japanese amendment should be referred to a sub-committee. ► Baron Adatchi assented and the