The Wanganui Chronicle. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1937. THE NINE-POWER TREATY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 265, 8 November 1937, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1937. THE NINE-POWER TREATY

’Y’HE Conference now in session in Brussels has been called by no one particularly to consider things in general and to do nothing very definite. Somehow it may be possible for the minds of the conferees to be changed, and should an opportunity occur which will make it easy for the Powers represented at the Conference to take some action against which there is no serious reaction, then possibly that action might be taken. On the whole the Conference at the moment bears the complexion of being an innocuous affair. Why then has it been called? The first purpose of the Conference is to fulfil, if only by an outward show of things, the Nine Power Treaty which was entered into at Washington on February 6, 1922, when the late Mr. Justice Salmond signed the Treaty on behalf of New Zealand. New Zealand is, therefore, as much concerned, from the standpoint of international honour, as any other country. The parties to the Nine-Power Treaty were the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal. Article One of the Treaty reads as follows: The contracting Powers, other than China, agree:— (1) To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; (2) To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government; (3) To use their influence for the purpose of effectually establishing and maintaining the principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations throughout the territory of China; (4) To refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States, and from countenancing action inimical to the security of such States.” Article One may be called the kernel of the Treaty for it sets forth clearly the objectives of the Powers in their attitude towards China and towards each other. There is no need to go over recent history to prove that the recent policy of Japan towards China has been in contravention of the Treaty because such contravention is self-evident. China on her part agreed by its adherence to the Treaty lo be guided by the Open Door Policy which is a free and equal opportunity for nations to trade with the Chinese people without preference or favour being shown to one or more as against the other nations. China also agreed that '‘throughout the whole of the railways in China she will not exercise or permit unfair discrimination of any kind.” The Treaty, however, did not bind the parties thereto to take action against any signatory to the Treaty which violated the spirit and letter of the Treaty. When it came to deal with breaches of the Treaty the Washington Conference trod softly. Article Seven of the Treaty reads as follows: “The contracting Powers agree that, whenever a situation arises which, in the opinion of any one of them, involves the application of the stipulations of the present Treaty, and renders desirable discussion of such application, there shall be full and frank communication between the contracting parties concerned.” Seeing that the contracting parties have bound themselves to enter into “full and frank communication,” the Brussels Conference is a fulfilment of that promise. It should be recognised, however, that the contracting Powers are not obliged to take any steps whatsoever against a recalcitrant party. Japan realises that there is not much likelihood of any action being taken and, therefore, treats the Conference with contempt, which may not be good manners, but it is certainly good diplomacy under existing circumstances. Were Japan to attend the Conference then she would be confronted with a case against herself which could not be answered and her specious arguments in justification of her actions would be laid bare before the world. The Chinese representative was right in emphasising that if Japan has a good conscience and a good ease she should welcome the opportunity of putting that case before the world. Seeing, however, that Japan has not a good case—it is too obvious to argue now—then in her own interests it is better that she refrains from entering the Conference. But what are the other contracting Powers going to do? They will certainly be able to discuss the matter frankly and fully among themselves and with China. China will be able io present her case to the world and will be able to claim from the contracting Powers that help both moral and material which the Nine-Power Treaty entitles her to. For, be it remembered, China in attending the Conference and stating her ease against Japan strengthens her position in this respect: she is entitled to all the help which the Powers can give to her in resisting Japan in its violation of the Treaty. Great Britain has indicated that she will support the United States of America, but Uncle Sam and John Bull stand confronting each other with folded hands and bland smiles on their faces each too polite to take a step before the other. In this they resemble the two fabled Chinese gentlemen who so acted and were so polite that there was a complete impasse. It is to be hoped that Jordans will not rush in where Nations fear to tread.