JAPANESE LEADER DENIES JAPAN IS TRADE AGGRESSOR.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20470, 23 November 1934, Page 6

JAPANESE LEADER DENIES JAPAN IS TRADE AGGRESSOR.

Demand for Concessions from Consumers of Imported Goods.

(By Viscount Ishii, Leader of Japanese delegation to the London Economic Conference.)

Looking back over the past year, students of international affairs must admit it has been full of dangerous developments, economic, political and international, for- the world. Japan has been no exception, for she has had to face acute difficulties in her relations with foreign countries. I In May of last year I had an interview with President Roosevelt. He told me Japanese goods were making inroads on the American market and that American producers and merchants were suffering greatly. It was not till then that it came to my knowledge Japanese trade abroad had developed in such propor > tions as to cause concern in foreign countries.

JN EUROPE I found the outcry against Japanese competition had attained the proportions of a despairing scream. They all wondered how it was possible that, while all other nations were suffering severely from the depression, Japan could achieve such a high level of exports. They were at a loss how to maintain their own industrial and commercial systems in the face of the Japanese advance. But what substance is there to this charge of economic aggression by Japan? Last year the relative exports were roughly 4.5 for Great Britain, 2.3 for the United States and 1 for Japan. Japan’s exports are still moderately low compared with those of the two Anglo-Saxon countries. Yet throughout the Western Hemisphere the loud cry against Japanese competition was heard. These nations were considering higher tariff walls or other methods to stem the inflow of Japanese merchandise. The most drastic measure was the quota system applicable to Japanese goods exclusively. Great Britain, for instance, has now enforced the quota system against Japanese merchandise, but she had not made up her mind about this drastic and unfriendly measure at the time of the London Economic Conference. Economic Nationalism. This* economic nationalism which prevails throughout the world is very harmful, as it acts against the promotion of international commerce. Japan and the United States at first put up a joint resistance against this economic trend. Such resistance was one of the major policies advocated by President Roosevelt, and it remains so to-day. The Democratic leaders who replaced the Republican Administration under President Hoover criticised the Republican tariff, saying it was too high and that their mission w r as to lower tariffs. Thus far the United States was determined to assert itself against attempts by other nations to erect higher tariff walls or enforce other arbitrary restrictive measures. Japan was more eager than America to fight against trade restrictions. The American delegation to the London Economic Conference, however, perceiving the dangerous atmosphere developing shortly before the conference decided to adjourn, assumed a more conciliatory attitude. They perceived the necessity of conforming to the general drift of the conference. They came out in the end with the suggestion that the United States might consider reciprocal treaties, which, in practice, would mean their retreat before the prevailing nationalistic atmosphere of the conference, for their show of readiness to consider reciprocal treaties meant their acceptance of a stand incompatible with unqualified adhesion to the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment. This left Japan alone as the champion of free trade, contending single-handed that international trade should be based on fair play and free competition, and that there should be no preferences, no high tariff

walls, no quotas. Such was the situation when I came home from the London 'Economic Conference There was no warrant for calling the advance of Japanese merchandise aggression. Foreign countries found it impossible to compete with Tapan’s industries; her goods were better, the price cheaper. The only thing left for them to do was to interfere with the entry of Japanese'goods into those parts of the world where they were planted firmly, no matter whether the means they chose to adopt for the purpose were justifiable or not. Thev closed their dobrs to Japanese merchandise, they turned their backs on the principle of the open door, all the while demanding the open door to China and charging Japan with having attempted to close it. Strange Situation. The latest example of this demand by the Powers for the “ freedom ” abroad which they deny at home was the furore caused by the statement to the Press by the Director of the Information Bureau of the Tokio Foreign Office last April. The Foreign Office statement, as I understand it. was to the purport that Japan does not want other Powers to do what they object to Japan doing. The spokesman of the Foreign Office undoubtedly had in mind the possible assistance to China of the League of Nations, without consultation with Japan, in the form of loans and political reconstruction, the latter immediately involving the supply of arms and munitions, aeroplanes, etc. We are facing a strange situation. All nations except Japan are closing their doors to free trade. Instead of directing their analysis of conduct toward themselves, they keep their eye riveted on Japan and watch her critically. Students of international affairs in this country are bound to enlighten the world about the real conditions, for such conditions offer no justification for the revision of the Japanese stand in this matter of trade, and whatever concessions are necessary must come from abroad. Japan produces superior articles through the industry of her workers and the scientific study of her experts, and can sell these articles at prices far lower than those demanded by her competitors. There can be no wrong in this. The only thing possible for Japan to do at this time probably would be to exercise care not to abuse the industrial and economic advantages which are hers to such an extent that they will lower the purchasing power of other nations, as this will bring about a reduction of the sale of Japanese merchandise in the long run. It would not be amiss for Japanese industrialists and merchants to adopt a conciliatory attitude toward other countries in order to readjust the trade relations with them, but at the same time they must do their utmost for the reinstatement of free trade and the revival of fair play. (N.A.N.A.—Copyright.)