BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 113, 10 February 1928, Page 9

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

STATEMENT BY SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN atttude to china ARBITRATION TREATY WITH UNITED STATES Sir Austen Chanb> r lain, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons, nude a long statement concerning British foreign policy leaking particular references to the situation in China and Nations with the United States. By Telegraph.—Pies? Association.—Copyright.

Rugby, FebruaryB.

Sir Austen Chamberlain, the L-osjg, I Secretary made a long statement today in the House of Commons, dealing vttlil points raised regarding toreign polity.' He said that he joined with the Prine Minister in grateiul recognition of tie unanimity of the House in respect o. the declaration made in the King’s Speech regarding British policy towards China That policy was the result of mature consideration. "As was stated at the time, the moment of its application must be dependent on circumstances which were and are be-

yond our control, but to that policy we remained faitli-

ful, and, as was made celar yesterday, it was no party question but was an expression of goodwill and friendship from the people of this country towards the people of China and their legitimate aspirations.. We had, indeed, no other interests in China than that our traders should be allowed to pursue their legitimate vocation as traders in peace and security, and we were prepared to meet Chinese aspirations for the revision of the treaties in a most liberal spirit, provided only that security was given for the lawful occupations of our people.” LACK OF STABLE GOVERNMENT IN CHINA. Referring to the impatience shown by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald because more progress had not been made, Sir Austen said that China was still broken with civil war. It was without any Government that could speak in the name of the whole of the Chinese people. Indeed, Governments came and went, as leaders came and went, and there could be no more difficult problem than to carry out r.he wishes of the British Government on the policy which it had announced, while the Chinese themselves were unable to provide a stable and settled Government for China. Still we had made some progress. Ju view of the long delay which had occurred in the carrying out of the compromise on the Washington Convention. the British Government had accepted the position that it would not be justified in withholdig its consent to the collection of the 2| per cent, surtax which it had provisionally agreed to. The surtax was being paid by British subjects throughout China, but the British Government objected and must continue to object to the illegal levies over and above that surtax which were continually cropping up in different parts of China in this or that passing local authority. The British Government ■would not object to a uniform national tariff which did not discriminate against British merchants and which was administered fairly. It was for the Chinese themselves to agree on this important question, and when they did agree among themselves —and he was happy to say that there were some signs lately of such agreement—then the British Government would help them.

PROGRESS IN FACE OF DIFFICULTIES. Similarly with extraterritoriality we had made'some progress in face of all difficulties. The Britsh Government had already recognised the modern 'Chinese Law Court in cases where a British subject was plaintiff or complainant. We were ready to apply in British Courts the modern Chinese civil and commercial code. The third branch of our programme was to surrender by negotiations our special rights in British Concessions. He wished he could give a more satisfactory account of the state ot things which had prevailed since that surrender. He could not say it was wholly encouraging. Circumstances of chaos and civil war were an immense obstacle to the proper and efficient discharge by the Chinese of obligations that became incumbent upon them from the moment that we surrendered any of those privileges. REDUCTION OF DEFENCE FORCE. Referring to reduction of the British defence force in China, Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the land forces had been already reduced from 12,500 to 4500, and orders had been given for the withdrawal of another battalion. “I shall be as glad,” he declared, “as members in any other part of the House when conditions of order and security in China make the total withdrawal of that force possible. That time has not come yet, and I venture to say that no responsible Government could leave our concessions there without something more than normal protection in the conditions which still prevail . “I must mention with regret the failure of any Chinese authorities in that part of the country to give satisfaction np to date for the outrages perpetrated at Nanking. It is impossible for our Consul-General to reoccupy the Consulate, which, even at this moment, is occupied wrongfully and unlawfully by

Chinese troops, and no sort of satisfaction has hitherto been offered for outrage to life, property, oi national dignity inflicted on us as upon other nations. “The situation is undoubtedly better than a year ago. In particular, the mti-foreign character of the agitations tarried on and still more anti-British character of the agitations has changed, aid I think there is beginning to be among the Chinese people a better aptreflation of the real goodwill of the tritsh Government and the British P'ope, and that they are beginning to coisffer all the liberality and friendshij'implied and involved not, only in lie declaration which we published a yiar ago, but in our actions since that tine/’ TiREE-POWER NAVAL CONFERENCE. Referiig to the failure of the ThreePower lavil Conference at Geneva, Sir Austen Uiimberlain said: “I do not think weshmkl be well advised to take up the sibjict again at this moment, but I hope liat the Governments who were represited at that conference and other Goveninents interested in, but not parties t> it, may learn from that failure, so tla wnen the time comes to review the Washington Convention, and, as I hope, to make a new one, profiting by the lessons of the past, we may succeed where last year we failed.” '

In regard to thenroposed new Arbitration Treaty witf the United States, the Foreign Secn a rv said: “The new treaty, like theold, is not an unlimited Treaty of Aiitration on every difference. Like tin old Root-Bryce Treaty, it is confined ■> what are called ‘justifiable’ differencs. More than that, like the old treat; it excepts certain questions, even iffhev be ‘justifiable.’ It proposes not i repetition of the old reservations, bu the adoption of new reservations or exceptions in their place, and the exact fleet of those reservations is just one If the many important questions which the British Government is at this niornnt carefully examining in order to ascertjn whether the treaty is in fact of wide scope or, it may be, of, narrower sco e , but in either case in what the diffe»nce consists.” The American Government hd found it nccessarv to reserve the 'onstitutional right of the Senate to be consulted on each individual referece to a Court of Arbitration. That wa a reservation which found a place n the existing treaty, but it was a restyation of a very wide scope and a mot important character. We must ente into* full correspondence and consuhtion with the Governments of the Dominions overseas before we could give our answer to the proposal made. EXISTING TREATY WITH UNITED STATES. “But there is a second treaty exiting between ourselves and the Unite! States to which, I think, sometimes it. sufficient attention is paid. It is th< Bryan-Spring Rice Treaty, which provides that before we enter into any dispute, the matter should be referred to a Commission of Conciliation, aiM that a year’s time should be given, an( we should await the report of that commission before we take to arms. I am not at all sure that at the present stage in Europe it mav not be the case that the next advance may' be made rather along the lines of that treaty than along the strict lines of arbitral agreement. At any rate, when we are talking about treaties of arbitration, let us not forget the very important and very useful and salutary provisions of the treatv signed between Mr. Bryan and the late Sir Cecil Spring Rice.

“I can scarcely speak of arbitra, tion with the United States, either in its narrow or larger sense,” added Sir Austen Chamberlain, “without saying once again that whatever our position, and let us make it the best we can for the British Government, war with the United States is unthinkable, and the prospects of war with the United States or a preparation for war with the United States has never been, and will never be, the basis of our policy in any field.” —British Official Wireless.