TROOPS IN CHINA.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1921, Page 5

TROOPS IN CHINA.

DEMAND FOR WITHDRAWAL. DECISION OF JAPAN. SOME CONCESSIONS MADE. JFrom the Special Representative of the Australian Press Association.) Received Dec. 1, 8.5 p.m. Washington. Nov. 30. The Far Eastern Committee’s communique to-day contained a full statement from the Japanese regarding their attitude in connection with foreign garrisons in China. They emphatically disclaimed that Japan ever entertained any aggressive purposes or desired to encroach illegitimately on Chinese sovby sending and maintaining such garrison*. Referring to Shantung, they stated Japan has declared she now reaffirms her intention of withdrawing her troops as soon as China has her policy duly organised and has taken over charge of the railway protection. Similarly at Hankow it is _x>t intended that the troops should remain permanently, but Japan must be assured that China will immediately take effective measures in connection with the maintenance of ordei and the protection of foreigners, and assume responsibility for any damage v-hich may be or has been done to foreigners.

The maintenance troops along the South Manchuria railway, and the activity of bandits in that region render it impossible for Japan to forego the right, or rather the duty, of maintaining railway guards in Manchuria, whose presence is duly recognised by the treaty. As to the Pekin guards. Japan is ready, acting in unison with other Powers having garrisons there, to withdraw them as soon as conditions warrant. Japan will also withdraw her troop* guarding the railways in Siberia when other troops in those regions are also withdrawn. Japanese troops in China proper approximate 4500, of which 2700 are in Shantung. Regarding police, the statement offered considerations for their continuance, as they did hot interfere with Chinese or other nationals, and were proving of much practical usefulness. The committee discussed the question of wireless stations. The committee were notified that Mr. C. E. Hughes (America) and Mr. A. J. Balfour (Britain) had offered their good offices to representatives of Japan and China, and suggested there should be conversations between these representatives in regard to the settlement of the questions of Shantung and Kiachau. The offices were accepted by representatives of both Governments. and conversations are to proceed accordingly The uncomfortable Shantung question to-day was removed, at any rate for the present, from the purview of the conference. The American viewpoint, as expressed by their spokesman, was that it was obviously desirable there should be conversations between the

two nations in the present very favorable atmosphere. The Chinese and Japanese delegations also spoke hope—■fully, though the former qualified its remarks by saying the people of China prefer the matter to be settled at the conference. They also pointed out that conversations would not bind either nation to finalise matters if conclusions are not reached. Both indicated, however. that the delegations were prepared to do their best for Ch.na without insisting on reference to the conference. It cannot be iaid, however, that China is entering the conversations with an open mind. To-day the Chinese delegates issued a statement reviewing the Shantung question, which reflected in several ways on Japanese conduct in dealing with Shantung. In one or two places quite undiplomatic language was used. Japan was accused that she deliberately violated neutrality and proceeded to make secret arrangements •with European Powers. All this is not calculated to preserve the atmosphere of goodwill. The Chinese have not abandoned their attitude at Versailles, where they maintained that Shantung and all its ceded rights reverted to

A CRITICAL STAGE. EAST QUESTIONS IMPERILLED. CHINA NOT SATISFIED. Received Dec. 1, 11.30 p.m. Washington. Nov. 30. More discordant notes were sliuck to-night concerning Shantung. Two representatives of several public bodies in China, sent here unofficially to watch the delegation, issued a statement opposing acceptance of the proposition of conversations, and insisting that the matter should be brought before the Conference in the regular way as a violation of China's integrity, this being the unchangable view of the Chinese people. Another objection came from Mr. Masoo, the personal representative of the Sun Yat Sen and the South China Government, who alleged that Mr. Hughes had been out-manoeuvred by the other Powers =o that the Chinese delegation was rendered powerless and, the whole affair was a farce. Accredited Chinese correspondents also declare that while China is willing to discus? matters with Japan, the CTiinpeople want Shantung returned unconditionally. It is believed in an important quarter, if China had forced her views regarding Shantung, that the Conference would have voted against the question coming before them on the grounds that it would have violated the Treaty of Versailles, thus playing into Germany's hands to ask for a revision of the conditions. This would have been the French view certainly if China refused Mr. Hughes' and Mr Balfour’s offices and insisted on bringing the matter to the Conference. A most critical situation baa been created imperilling the whole _ Far Eastern question. The Chinese issued another long statement reviewing the conditions surrounding the foreign troops in China, including the legation guards, as doing violence to the sense of pride of the people.