WORLD AFFAIRS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 335, 30 January 1932, Page 26 (Supplement)

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A Weekly Review of Current Events. SITUATION IN FAR EAST. (By BYSTANDER.) Conditions in the Far East have been for some months past so precarious that any casual incident might easily provide the occasion for formal declarations of war between China and Japan. A few days ago the excuse so ardently desired by the Tokyo militarists seemed actually to have been supplied by an outbreak of serious disorder at Shanghai. An assault upon some Japanese monks induced a body of Japanese civilians to organise an attack on a Chinese factory, the police were called out, and a serious riot occurred. The Japanese admiral commanding in Chinese waters at once issued an ultimatum to the Chinese Government, demanding satisfaction for injuries inflicted on Japanese nationals at Shanghai, insisting on “ the dissolution of anti-Japanese associations,” and threatening in default of a suitable reply to occupy Shanghai. To talk about dissolving “ anti-Japanese associations ” in China is sheer nonsense; it would mean “ dissolving ” the whole Chinese nation. But the Japanese naval commander at Shanghai has stated publicly that unless his Government receives a satisfactory answer the city will be seized at once by main force and held till matters are suitably settled. The Nanking Government is said to be much perturbed, as it is not in a position to declare war, owing to lack of military and naval resources. No reply to the ultimatum has yet been given, and the Chinese authorities are said to be making “ frantic preparations ” for resistance at Shanghai. Meantime the Council of the League of Nations is still wrestling with this difficult problem, and its task has not been rendered easier by the attitude of the Japanese delegates. The situation was not improved by Captain Sato’s statement that “ nothing has been changed in Manchuria,” because the 20,000,000 Chinese in the territory that Japan has seized “are still there,” but Chinese authority has been superseded by Japanese control, which enables them to live and work “ in a peaceful atmosphere”! For cool effontery this must surely mark a new record in the debates of the League of Nations. The Policy of France. The European world is still convulsed by controversy over the payment of war debts and reparations, and Germany, profiting by the sympathy that she has apparently aroused in Britain and America, is more obdurate than ever. Dr Bruning, the German Chancellor, will not now agree even to the extension of the moratorium, because Germany cannot accept any proposal “ which would prolong the general uncertainty ”! In other words, Germany, having signed several treaties and agreements which bouhd her to pay reparations, now proposes to treat these contracts as “ scraps of paper ” by her own initiative and volition, without going through the formality of consulting the other contracting parties. No wonder that France refuses to tolerate such a policy. During the past week M. Laval, the French Prime Minister, has publicly defended his country and its attitude, and he has received a vote of confidence from the French Parliament, which shows that the nation is solidly behind him. M. Laval insists that France has given ample proof of her magnanimity and of the peaceful nature of her intentions. She has reduced her armaments and she has made substantial concessions to the Germans. But her Ministers cannot neglect their responsibility for the safety of their, country and the prosperity of its people, and they will never agree to the “ unilateral ” repudiation of agreements to which all the Powers of Europe appended their signatures. A Witness for the Defence. Probably many of my readers may regard M. Laval’s defence of his country as naturally prejudiced, and therefore unworthy of serious consideration. Let me, then, cite in his support a witness who must be regarded as impartial. The “ National Review ” for August, 1931, contained an article by Brigadier-General Spears, entitled “ Great Britain and France,” which deserves serious attention from those who are in the habit of blaming France for anything and everything that goes wrong in Europe. It happens that General Spears had written for the same review four months previously an article on Foch's Memoirs, which was regarded by many Frenchmen as unsympathetic and ungenerous, and a formal reply to it, written by a French Ambassador, actually appeared in the number of the review to which I am now referring. General Spears may therefore be accepted as unbiased when he speaks on France’s behalf. In this last article the General endeavours to show that France, in her dealing with Germany and the rest of the Powers, has been neither militant nor grasping nor unreasonable. He insists that France is not obstinately determined to maintain the treaties in their original form. France has accepted the Locarno agreement, and the Kellogg Pact, and the Dawes Plan, and the Young Plan, all of which profoundly modified the original settlement. But she will not suffer Germany to tear up the treaties at her will, simply to suit her own purposes, and General Spears holds that France is quite right in this decision. He points out, further, that France has watched the German administrative bodies, both central and local, expending huge sums on extravagant projects or on preparations for war, and she may be excused for refusing to believe that poverty is Germany’s best reason for refusing to pay her debts. As regards armaments, General Spears makes some very striking statements. He shows that, while the British Army, including the Indian forces, comprise 510,000, France’s armies, at home or abroad’, amount to only 522,000. Of these over 200,000 are stationed abroad, and 70,000 are colonial garrison reserves, leaving

for the complete permanent defence of France’s frontiers about 200,000 men with more than six months’ training. And these are the “ mighty armaments ” that are supposed to imperil the peace of Europe. The German Menace. The facts that I have cited seem fully to justify General Spears’s conclusions. “ France,” he maintains, “is essentially pacific, as every competent observer agrees. Her people only wish to live in peace, to work in the field or in the factory, free from the apprehension of war.” France clings to defensive measures, chiefly because she has little faith in treaties, and the “ guarantee ” promised by Britain and America has been repudiated. But according to General Spears, there is no doubt that the French people would most sincerely welcome any satisfactory alternative to “ the precarious and dangerous guarantee of armaments ” if they could only get it. But while, according to this competent and impartial British critic, France is anxious for peace, and even desires some form of permanent accommodation with Germany, is there any responsive echo of “ peace and good will ” from the other side of the Rhine? In reply, let me offer two quotations from the recent post-war speeches of influential Germans. On October 20. 1930, Herr Hitler, the champion of the Nazis, was reported in a Berlin newspaper as having stated that he had England “ in his pocket,” and that by diplomatic tactics he meant to use her “ for the destruction of France.” So late as January 13 of this current year, Herr Spangemacher, the Nazi leader in the Reichstag, publicly expressed the hope that “ German troops would soon be marching across the Rhine against France—their deadliest foe,” and he concluded with an outburst of characteristic Teutonic invective: “One of us must die, and it is those dogs of Frenchmen, because we must live.” The Nazis are numbered by millions, and they boast that they will soon rule Germany; and France is expected by our pacifists to disarm and to expose herself defenceless to such a menace as this.