POLICY IN CHINA

Wairarapa Age, 12 February 1927, Page 5

POLICY IN CHINA

LABOUR PARTY AMENDMENT REJECTED. SPEECH BY SIB. A. CHAMBERLAINBRITISH AIMS DEFINED. The debate in the House of Commons on a Labour Party amendment attacking the policy of the’ British Government in China was made noteworthy chiefly by a stirring speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir A. Chamberlain). (Received Friday, 7.35 p.m.) LONDON, February 11. In the House of Commons, Mr. Trevelyan’s amendment to the Address-in-Reply was rejected by 320 votes to 103. I<i submitting his amendment, Mr Trevelyan said Labour’s policy was to put China on a footing of national independence in the fullest meaning of the term and the party would not allow Britain to quarrel with the Soviet because the latter was backing that policy- Personally, he believed the Conservative Government was moving in the same direction, though more cautiously, but the sending of troops had brought chaos when a settlement was about reached. Self-respeching governments did not sign treaties while the mailed fist was shaken in their faces. Mr. Trevelyan regretted that the League’s intervention had not been sought.

When Sir Austen Chamberlain rose, he emphasised the difference between Mr. Trevelyan’s speech and those of Messrs- MacDonald and Thomas. Mr. MacDonald and himself were not far apart in the policy they desired to pursue in China, but Mr. Trevelyan had used language which might well bo taken elsewhere as an encouragemeni to refuse a settlement. The Government’s policy had been to co-operate with other Powers;. Britain in. December indicated the broad lines upon which she was ready to l move in the hope of placing relations on a friendly basis. All the agitations in Shanghai and Canton had been anti-British, and though there were three other concessions in Hankow, only Britain’s was attacked. Did ever troops show such gallant self-control as the naval men did on January 3. Despite the shaking of the mailed fist in our faces and the forcible seizure of our concession, we were still negotiating,. All this happened after Sir M. Lampson’s conversations with Chen. It was easy for the Opposition to say the risk must not be over-rated, but would Mr. Trevelyan feel as happy if his wife were in Shanghai or he were there himselft Every Power had taken precautions, but ours was a special position. The whole drive during the last two. years had been against us. We could not wait till danger was at our gates. After outlining the negotiations till Chen broke them off on February 5 because we decided to negotiate on the saifie terms with the Government at Pekin, Sir A. Chamberlain said Mr. O’Malley and Chen had now reached a point in the negotiations that in regard to the Concession they were- in agreement. The conditions included one that the Concession, at present being administered by a. Chinese Commission, be returned to the British municipal council, which then would formally hand it over to a new Chino-British municipality elected by ratepayers. Thus Chinese ■will have the same right as British subjects. We are prepared to assure Chen that we will do all in our power to ensure the successful operation of the agreement. —(A. and N.Z.)

FOREIGN MINISTER’S HOPE. AGREEMENT WITH CHEN. (Received Friday, 8.55 p.m.) LONDON, February 10. Sir Austen Chamberlain said that Chen was prepared to give an assurance that all outstanding questions between the Nationalists and foreign Powers should be settled by negotiations, also that the Nationalists woull not use force or countenance its use for the purpose of changing the status of the Concession and International Settlement. Referring to the troop movements, Sir A. Chamberlain said the Government could i)ot take out of the hands of the men on the spot responsibility for the safety of the lives o? our nationals in Shanghai, for which it had been advised that additional troops were necessary. The Government was prepared to* accept the O’Malley-Chen agreement, with Chen’s assurance, but it reserved the right to take measures to protect British lives and interests. He declared that the Government never contemplated the use of troops for any other purpose and would land «nly such as were necessary. These would be stationed in the Settlement and would not be moved outside except in a grave emergency. We would continue strict neutrality with regard to China’s civil

“I cannot predict the future, because the course of negotiations is always uncertain,” said the Foreign Minister, “but I believe peace is secure and that a new and better understanding of British aims will spread among the Chinese.”

Mr. MacDonald, summing up on behalf of the Opposition, hoped the effect and opportunities of Sir A. Chamberlain’s speech would be duly weighed in Hankow. The Labour Party’s position was clear. There was no dispute about negotiations. Tho division upon the despatch of troops. The Government policy began wtih defence, but was bound to end with offence.—(A. and N.Z.)