Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1932. MOMENTOUS ISSUES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 125, 23 November 1932, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1932. MOMENTOUS ISSUES

The opening at Geneva before a world tribunal with an Irishman in the chair of a debate in which the principal parts have been taken by representatives of Japan and China, both, it is safe to say, speaking perfect English with a strong American accent, and on the result of which the issues of peace- and war «not merely for the Far East but for the whole world depend, is' an event as picturesque as it is momentous. But the world is too deeply depressed by its present troubles to pay much heed to either aspect of proceedings which, if not wisely handled, may increase them indefinitely. Oddly enough, the most elaborate attention is being paid to these proceedings by a country which is taking no official part in them, and which, after taking a leading part in the institution of the League of Nations, disclaimed for several years any official knowledge of its existence. Probably not even in Japan, and certainly not in the British Empire or anywhere else, have such arrangements been made for reporting the great debate as those which were mentioned in a message from New York yesterday.

Printing a 9000-word summary of the Japanese reply to the Lytton 'Commission's report and the full text of the address by Lord Lytton at Geneva, as well as numerous statements by various national spokesmen, leading journals in the "United States to-mor-row (Monday) will, devote a ' large amount of space to the Manehurian question.. .

Such large-scale reporting in a country-more than 3000 miles'awav testifies at once to the intense in*terest of the American people in the Manchurian problem, to the enterprise of their; Press, and to the wonddrs that science has accomplished in defying the obstacle of space and bringing the nations nearer together. Unfortunately these triumphs of science serve also to emphasise by way of contrast the slow pace which keeps the moral progress of. the nations in their dealings with one another lagging far behind. If Napoleon was right in regarding the artillery of any era as the test of its civilisation, the world has made great strides since the League of Nations came into existence nearly thirteen years ago. But the reality of the progress that it has made of a more desirable kind, the efficiency of the organisation which', was created by the Peace Treaty as a permanent bulwark ' against future wars, and the possibility that an dut : right defiance of the League by the Prussia of the Far East may destroy its authority and throw the peace machinery of the-world back to where it was in July, 1914-^all these things are staked lupon the proceedings at Geneva which are how being reported all over the United States with a thoroughness, a precision, and a speed that even a few years age would have-seemed a fairy tale. Though a strange chance, has' put a fighting Irishman in the chair of the peace tribunal at Geneva, the lead is still in the hands of Britain. Especially in the early stages of the trouble Sir John Simon's diplomacy incurred" a .good deal of adverse criticism because it was not as fast or as strong as British indignation at die high action of Japan desired, but caution is no disqualification for a peacemaker, and no member of the Council of the League is likely to carry greater weight. ' But outside the Council the lead has" recently been taken by another Englishman. Whatever mistakes the League-;' of Nations may have made in the treatment of this extraordinarily difficult matter, there is no question as to its wisdom both in appointing an International Commission to investigate the problem in all its bearings on the spot and in its choice of a chairman, nor as to the thorough and impartial manner in which the Commission has done its work. Having discharged their duty by the completion of the report which was published on the 2nd October, Lord Lytton and his four colleagues, representing between them- the: four Great Powers of Europe and the United States, presumably became strangers "to the League, and it was only as spectators that they were present at the meeting of the Council of the League on Monday. But as the broadcast address to which we have referred was issued by Lord Lytton from the League's own short-wave station on the eve of the Council meeting, it must be assumed to have some sort of official authority behind it. Its importance in the eyes of America may be inferred from the fact that, while a 9000-word summary of the Japanese reply to the Commission's report was enough for her leading papers, the full text of Lord Lytton's address was circulated throughout, the United States both By the Press and by radio. The "New YoMc Times," which described the recommendations of the Commission as "singularly free from bias on either side" and as "marked with great impartiality and breadth of view," was reported yesterday to be equally pleased with Lord Lytton's broadcast address.

"His appeal," it says, "was couched in a lofty persuasive tone befitting the high importance of the question coming before the League." So far as the brief extracts supplied

yesterday enable us to judge, this high praise is not misplaced. The outlook, as Lord Lytton describes it, is neither* bright nor hopeless.

This'little cloud.that-Appeared on the Far East horizon in September, 1931, has grown, ho says, ■ into a very threatening storm. It is an anxious moment for the world. The issue at stake is much larger than whether 'Japan shall control Manchuria. It is whether the principles of collective responsibility for the maintenance of peace.and justice between.nations shall be preserved' or sacrificed.

The supreme gravity of the position is not overstated in these weighty words, and there is no lack of bite in the addition."that if an act was unjustifiable it could not be justified by the mere fact of having been accomplished." The words have a special application to what is perhaps the least, pardonable of all the Japanese operations in Manchuria— the creation of the new State of Manchiikuo, the representation of it as the outcome of the spontaneous expression of "self-determination" on the part of the "30,000;000 inhabitants of Manchuria," and the official recognition of it as an jnde* pendent State. All this"-was done while the Commission was proceeding with its inquiry, and with the manifest intention V>f presenting the Commission and the League of Nations with a "fait accompli" which did not admit of. further argument But the Commission did not take that view, nor does Lord Lytton countenance it.now.

Part of the Commission's finding on Japan's procedure was as follows :—'

The evidence, received from all sources has satisfied the Commission that while there were a number of factors which contributed to the creation of "Manchukiio," the two which in combination were most effective and without which, in- our judgment, the new State could not have been formed, were the presence of Japanese troops and the activities of Japanese officials, both civil and military. For this reason' the present regime cannot be considered to have been called" into existence by a, genuine and spontaneous independence movement.

In unofficial language the "Round Table's" contributor in China' had previously described Manchukuoas a "puppet State," and also as "ari empty farce and an object of hatred arid contempt to the majority of educated Chinese who .have been obliged to remain in Manchuria." Yeb Japan's ten points as reported yesterday still include the assertion that "the foundation of Manchukuo was accomplished by the Manchurians' spontaneous action"—a crass absurdity which even the enthusiasm of the "Daily Mail" does not yet appear to have taken seriously. '