CHINESE REPLY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20017, 16 August 1939, Page 14

CHINESE REPLY

DEFENCE BY GARRISON

JAPANESE PUNISHMENT

SETTLEMENT EFFORTS

LEAGUE FINDINGS CITED (For Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. A statement tins been issued by Mr. Feng Wang, *tho Consul-General at Wellington l'or the Republic of China, in reply to a claim advanced bv Mr. K. Gunji, the Consul-General for Japan, that in the conflict, in China Japan is fighting in self-defence and that China was responsible for the present trouble. “Briefly, the facts are that on the evening of July 7, 1937, Japanese troops held illegal manoeuvres at Lukouchiao, a railway junction of strategic importance 10 miles south of Pekin, where .their presence could not be defended under any existing treaty or agreement,” states Mr. Feng Wang. “Alleging that one of their soldiers was missing, the Japanese troops demanded after midnight to enter an adjacent garrisoned city of Wanping to conduct a search. “When permission was refused by the Chinese authorities, the Japanese suddenly opened an attack on Wanping with infantry and artillery forces. When the Chinese garrison offered resistance in self-defence, the Japanese at once resorted to largescale operations against the Chinese troops, in order, to quote their own words, ‘to punish the Chinese army and to uphold the Japanese military prestige.’

Clash in Shanghai

“Regarding the Shanghai incident, briefly the facts are these: On August 9 a Japanese naval officer and a Japanese seaman attempted to approach the Chinese military aerodrome in the suburb ot Shanghai in spite of the Chinese warning. When they were stopped by a Chinese guard a clash took place in which the two Japanese and a member of the Chinese Peace Preservation Corps were killed. “While the Chinese local authorities immediately proposed a settlement through diplomatic channels, the Japanese navy concentrated 30 warships in Shanghai within 48 hours and increased their naval forces by several thousand marines. On August 13, four days after the incident, the Japanese naval forces, both ashore and afloat, using the International Settlement as a base of operations, attacked the Chinese districts of Kiangwan and Chapei. In defence of her territory and independence, China lias been obliged l here as in North China, to resist force with force. Efforts for Peace “From the moment of the Lukouchiao incident, the Chinese local authorities made repeated efforts to cfTect a peaceful settlement with Japan and, though the responsibility did not rest with the Chinese authorities; went out of their way to accept the Japanese demands for an apology, punishment, of the officers involved in the conflict, and guarantee against recurrence of similar incidents, the replacement of Chinese regular troops at designated points by tile Peace Preservation. Corps, and effective suppression of the so-called antiJapanese and Communist organisations in Hopei Province. “The Chinese Government itself repeatedly proposed simultaneous withdrawal. of Chinese and Japanese troops. Seeing that Japan insisted upon the so-called non-interference on its part in the local settlement, it went so far in the interest of peace ns to refrain from raising objections to its terms. But each concession and every act of forbearance on the part of the Chinese Government or the local authorities was taken by the Japanese military authorities as a sign of weakness and fear, and was followed by sending more Japanese troops *o Hopei Province lor the purpose of pressing forward the Plan of conquering North China. Answered By League Report “Mr. Gunji’s contention that Japan’s action in China does not violate the provisions of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Pact of Paris of 1928 is I answered by the first*, report adopted by *he League Assembly on October : G.' 1937.

“That report states: ‘Prima facie, the events described in the first part of this report constitute a breach by Japan of her obligations towards China and towards other States under these treaties. The conduct of hostilities by Japanese forces, under the circumstances described, by land,' water, and air throughout China is prima facie inconsistent with an obligation to respect the .sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial integrity of China, and also with the obligation never to seek the solution of a dispute /with China, of whatever origin or character, except by pacific means.’ Nine-Power Conference “The following quotation is taken from the Declaration of the NinePower Conference on November 15, 1937: “ ‘The Japanese Government has affirmed in its Note of October 27, to which it refers in its Note of November 12, that in employing armed force against China it was anxious to ‘make China renounce her present policy.' The representatives of the abovementioned Slates met nt Brussels are moved to point out that there exists no warrant in law for the lire of arm-

ed force by any country for the purpose of intervening in the in/.ernal regime of another country and that general recognition of such a right would be a permanent cause ol' conflict.

* “ ‘The Japanese Government contends that it should be left to Japan and China to proceed lo a settlement by and between themselves alone. But. that a just and lasting settlement could be achieved by such a method cannot be believed. Japanese armed forces are present in enormous numbers on Chinese soil, and have occupied large and important areas thereof. Japanese authorities have declared in substance that it is Japan’s objective to destroy the will and the ability of China to resist the will and the demands of Japan. The Japanese Government affirms that it is China whose actions and attitude are in contravention of the Nine-Power Treaty; yet, whereas China is engaged in full and frank discussion of the matter with other parties in that Treaty, Japan refuses to discuss it with any of them.’

“Like other Japanese spokesmen, Mr. Gunji assures us that Japan has no desire to establish sovereignty ovc* Chinese soil. These assurances might be reassuring if the solemn pledges of the Japanese Government and Japanese high officials hod not been broken repeatedly in the past.

Japanese Promises

“One has to turn back only a few pages of history to see these same promises made before with the same earnestness and gravity that Japan was devoid of territorial ambitions on the continent. The only difference W as that they were made with reference to Korea prior to 1910 and with reference to Manchuria only a few years ago. "Since 1931 every industrial or commercial enterprise that has been established in Manchuria is under control either by the Japanese themselves or by the Japanese-controlled regime there. It has not only been impossible for foreign interests; to expand their activities, but it has been necessary for them to reduce ot entirely close their business. “Such foreign concerns as the Asiatic Petroleum Company, the Standard Oil Company, of New York, and the Texas Oil Company, which prior to the Japanese occupation did 30 per cent of the refined oil business in the region, the Skoda steel, works, the Ilriiish-Aincrican Tobacco Company, and the Mukden branch of ’he National City Bank have been forced to seal their offices. These ore only .some of the foreign companies that have withdrawn from the field.

“Tliis is wlrat' Japan ‘has done in Manchuria.’ Can one expect the situation to be different in oilier parts of China which should fall under Japanese control?”