Washington Conference.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 December 1921, Page 2

Washington Conference.

(Ft'otn the Special Representative iff the Australian Press Association.) FOUR POWER PACT. AMERICAN PRESS CONTROVERSY. AVASHINGTON, Dec. 16. Quite a little storm has been rai *o in the American Press over the implications as to the extent of the Four Power Treaty. It began by one enterprising journalist pointing out that it was obvious that the islands of Japan proper came within the purview of the provisions of the Treaty, and the deduction was drawn that the United States was hound to come to the assistance of Japan if attacked by any other Power. Thus the Treaty became an entangling Alliance, and therefore anathema to good Republicans. Moreover, it conceded to Japan what the United States had denied France when she refused to undertake to give her support if again attacked by a European Power. The deduction is certainly founded on the most insignificant premises, hut it is enough to stir up alt the turmoil of domestic politics which surged round the discussion on the Treaty of Versailles.

The American spokesman was bombarded with questions on the matter. He said the State Department explained that anything involving the islands of Japan affected the Japanese people The special interests concerned necessitated the inclusion of Japan’s homeland, just as it included Australia and New Zealand. If her outlying islands were attacked, it meant really that Japan herself was attacked, so the distinction was a verbal one. Presidential interpretations were also invoked and the AVhite House explained, “once and for all, that nothing in the quadrilateral agreement requires one nation to enter armed activity in response to the decision of the three others. That is not the spirit or purpose of the agreement.”

Even the Anglo-Japanese Alliance lias been dragged into the controversy, it being stated as an incontestable fact that Japanese diplomats regarded the Four Power Treaty as a substitute for that Alliance. Air Hanihara (Japan) has found it necessary to deny this pointing ouf that texts of the two documents were very unlike each other.