THE EASTERN CLASH

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 261, 28 June 1932, Page 8

THE EASTERN CLASH

PROFIT-SEEKERS' POLICIES i CAUSE A CONFLICT § OF INTERESTS. f VARIOUS POTENT FORCES. "The clash of interests in the East differs from conflicts elsewhere only in that we are presented with a clearer picture of the essential nature of the conflict," said Mr. J. E. Strachan, who was in the New Zealand delegation to the eonference of the Institute of Pacific Relations Confarence at Hangchow, in an address to members of the W.E.A. at Christchurch. The struggle in the East arose, Mr. Strachan pointed out, from the fact that the policies promulgated were ; the policies of profit-seekers, not of statesmen in co-operation in the general interests. In the past, the speaker continned huge financial concerns had directed the domestic affairs of Japan, but had not hitherto interfered in foreign af- j fairs. This influence of financial cir- \ cles was expressive of the very pronounced economic nationalism in the country. The two conservative political parties, the Minseito and the Selyukia were dependent on the- great financial and business interests. Outside Parliament, however, there were various potent forces, the most im- | portant being the military faction. Mr. Strachan suggested that the energetic activity of the Japanese army and navy of late was due to fear of disarmament and the desire to maintain their position against the menace of the growth of Liberal ideas. This fear of demobilisation and dismissal would perhaps account for the vigorous military activity in Manchuria and the naval expedition to Shanghai. So also in Chinese political affairs the great mass of the people were unrepresented by the nationalism of Dr. Sun Yat Sen or by the bureaucracy of Chiang Kai Shek or by the sporadic expressions of eonservatism oi* of Communism. The Government could not be called representative but outside there were organisations with a certain amount of power — there were student groups clamouring for retaliatory measures and numerous antiJa,panese organisations which were successful in carrying out programmes of hoycotting. !! Claims in Manchuria: ? Japanese interests in Manchuria clashed with Chinese interests, particularly on questions of investment and trade. "It is astonishing how many people think Japan wants Manchuria for settl'ement of her surplus population," said Mr. Strachan. Japan claimed Manchuria on sentimental and strategic grounds, as well as financial. Manchuria would be in the nature of a buffer State between Japan and probable enemies — Societ Russia and China. Ilt was regarded by the Japanese, moreover, as soil sacred to them as the burial ground of their soldiers in the Russo- Japanese War of 1905-. Manchuria was in the nature of their Gallipoli. China maintained that her railway construction was self-defensive in view of the exorbitant tariff on the Japanese lines, she disputed the right of Japan to establish armed force in Manchuria, and claimed that Manchuria was rightfully Chinese territory, s'ettled by Chinese. She claimed that lawlessness and banditry, as well as anti -Japanese boycotts, were popular movements fostered by Japanese aggressiveness.