Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1939. ISSUES IN EAST ASIA.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 August 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1939. ISSUES IN EAST ASIA.

AS it bore broadly on current Anglo-Japanese relations, the statement made by Mr Chamberlain in the House ol Commons on the eve of the much-discussed adjournment, tv as notably frank and outspoken. The statement threw lit tie li hl on the British altitude towards some ol the questions 01. deta now being discussed in Tokio, and Mr Chamberlain perhaps • failed to support adequately his contention that the Government had not gone back on its position regarding aggression in China. As to the ultimate issue raised,. however, he con hardly have been more candid. Emphasising m the strongest terms his Government’s objection to “incidents in which tne Japanese have been concerned in the last few months in tie Ear East,” he asked his hearers also to bear m mmd that the situation for Britain was particularly difficult.

■Exception cannot reasonably be taken to Mr Chamberlain s contention that even in the presence of the insults and injuries which have been inflicted upon British subjects in China by 1| ) ( ‘ Japanese it is necessary to think of what can be done at this particular time. With her existing commitments m Europe Britain evidently is not in a position to send io the Far Last the predominant fleet which, as Mr Chamberlain hinted might be the only means of giving effectual protection to British interests in that region.

Even as unsparing a critic as the London “Daily lieraid, which declares that what is happening in the Far East is mostly the fault of Mr Chamberlain and his friends (this apparently with reference to events from the Japanese seizure of Manchuria onwards), rounds off its criticism somewhat tamely with the observation that: —

Britain can still co-operate with the United States and consult the Dominions regarding the best use of economic power and can refuse to become Japan’s accomplice in China.

It should he possible for all parties in the Empire to agree that Britain is bound in any case and at all costs not. to become Japan’s accomplice in China. Undoubtedly, too, the most should be made of any opportunity that is offered of co-operating with the United States against Japanese aggression. Although Lord Samuel is reported as suggesting, in the House ol Lords, that Australia is partly responsible for Britain’s reluctance 1o adopt a stiffer attitude against Japan, if may be supposed that, the Dominions, and not least Australia and New Zealand, would heartily approve and support Anglo-American resistance to unjust Japanese demands.

It will be observed, however that although it criticises Mr Chamberlain rather bitterly, the “Daily .Herald’ prescribes no more positive policy in the Far East than the British 1 rime Minister presumably is quite willing to adopt. The possibilities of economic co-operation between. Britain and the United Slates have yet to be defined. All that has happened thus lar is that the United States has given the necessary six months’ notice of abrogation of its Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan. This action is highly important, but tentative. 11. the abrogation takes effect, Japan will lose a “most-favoured nation” position in her trade with the United States and her exports will become subject Io the highest. American tarili duties.

If the United States is prepared, in Hie event of Japan declining to modify her aggression in China, to follow up the denunciation of the treaty by further economic action, and to co-operate with Britain in withholding essential supplies from •Japan, a new situation will be opened up in the Far East. Opinion in the Hnit-ed States is by no means unanimously in favour even of economic action against Japan, however, and a great deal must depend upon the lengths to which the American Government, is prepared to go and finds itself able 1o go. 11 is meantime a commanding feature of the situation that there is a fundamental difference, as Air Chamberlain quite fairly claimed, between the position of America, in its isolation from Europe, and that of Britain.

While the possibilities of more extended action remain to be determined. Britain has certain obligations to China which she cannot in honesty ami justice, evade. At its face value, Air Chamberlain’s statement that the British Government has not gone back on its position regarding aggression in China means that Britain will do nothing to assist .Japan in her predatory invasion. It remains as difficult as ever to see how the fulfilment of that duly am! obligation can be reconciled with Britain's undertaking, in t he Tokio formula, not Io countenance any aids or measures prejudicial to the enforcement by the Japanese forces of their control in the occupied areas oi ('hiirn. A great deal depends on the interpretation of the formula, however, and Air Chamberlain’s statement. though it is not as completely explicit on the subject as could be desired, implies that the British interpretation involves no such submission to the invaders as has been suggested both in Japanese jubilations ami in Chinese protests.