The Press Tuesday, April 12, 1921. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17117, 12 April 1921, Page 6

The Press Tuesday, April 12, 1921. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

in-which the H0n.,.W.;M,. referred! to the Treaty,.if iiis correctly represented in the cable message printed on Saturday, was admirable. He wasifrank and firm without saying anything which could offend any reasonable Japanese. ' The tWo points which he had to emphasise were, first, Australia's insistence upon Unrestricted freedom to control .immigration, and second, the determination of Australia, that the policy of the Bri-tish-Empire in the Far East must be Buch as to.make easy, and to maintain, Anglo-American amity. On the first of these points Mr Hughes reminded Japan that Australia claims an equal right with Japan to maintain a national ideal and to translate it into legislation. "Japan for the Japanese" is so tenaciously: adhered to by the Japanese 'Government as a leading * motive ■ of -policy that there is no country in the world which places; so many disabilities upon the Mien and the foreigner- as are in operation in Japan. Mr A. M. Pooley •hardly exaggerates when, he says that , •" practically a' foreigner has no rights "in Japan."' A foreigner cannot become naturalised in Japan except by marriage into a Japanese family and the adoption of a Japanese name. No foreigner can own land in Japan. Nb foreign ships are permitted to engage in harbour traffic or in coastwise trade. No foreigner may open a law office in Japan. Bounties are given to native shippers in incrimination against v foreign exporters. The poliqy of hostility to foreigners is not merely carried out through restrictive laws; it has been openly and vehemently preached by responsible statesmen and publicists, such as Dr. Okuda, Mr Tokutomi (the: leader of the "White Peril'! campaign in .1918), Count. Okuma, the late Count Hayashi, Viscount Suyematsu, Viscount Kaneko, and Count Komura. Neither Australia nor America has any reason for apologising for their opposition to Japanese immigration. But, a* we have urged on several occasions, the race issue is not the most important. More important for Australasia, and, indeed, for all white countries, is the liberation of the Asiatic mainland from Japanese domination. And the first necessary step towards this end is the arrangement of such a sound Anglo-American understanding as will enable the two countries to act firmly and harmoniously together in the Far East. The existing Japanese Treaty is a formidable barrier to such an understanding as this, and Mr Hughes has made it clear that while he believes in the maintenance of Treaty relations between Britain and Japan, he will not liave it in its present unrevised form. Although Mr Massey has abstained from discussing the Treaty, we have little doubt that his attitude at "the Imperial Conference will be the same as that of his Australian colleague. He favours the-continuance of Treaty relations, but he has laid great stress on the vital importance of a good understanding between Britain and Ame- -. rica. .'-. .■-..-.■,:,..■. : . Baron Hayaahi's comments on Mr Hughes's speech are friendly enough, although he has apparently used an ex-

pression which may be taken to imply that friendly relations between Japan and the Dominions are contingent upon the existence of an alliance. Unfortunately we cannot accept Baron Hayashi's statements as authoritative expressions of the views of the Japanese Government. It will be remembered that early in January Baron Hayashi said that if America and Britain cut down their naval expenditure Japan would follow suit. The "eight and "eight" programme is of such great public importance in Japan that a question was asked in the Diet concerning this statement, and Mr Hara declared that Baron Hayashi was merely expressing a personal opinion 1 And if the Ambassador's statements concerning the position of America have—as we believe they have—created the impression that Japan has cordially recognised the non-application of the Treaty as against America, then we are afraid this was again no more, than an expression of his personal views. For on February 4th last, when Mr Uyehara, at a sub-committee meeting of the Budget Committee of the Diet, asked for an explanation, Count Uchida de•clared that "the point was contr<jireri' sial as to whether the Treaty for the " settlement of international disputes, "concluded between Britain and Ame"rica, ought to be construed as a gen"eral arbitration treaty such as is pro"yided for in Article 4 of the Alliance." In the event of war between Japan and America, neutrality will be full of embarrassment and danger for Britain, and this is why a good many people feel driven into urging the complete abandonment of the« Alliance. This is the counsel of despair. British statesmanship ought to be able to devise some means of tying Britain, Japan, and America together in some arrangement which will remove, the shadow of war from the Pacific, and we believe that Mr Hughes and Mr Massey can be of immense service in this connexion..