BRITAIN’S ATTITUDE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 February 1940, Page 5

BRITAIN’S ATTITUDE

ASAMA MARU INCIDENT EXCHANGE OF NOTES. JAPAN'S CONTRARY VIEW. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 6. The White Paper issued in London on the exchange of Notes ' between Britain and Japan sets out that in the first communication handed to the British Ambassador in Tokio, Sir Robert Craigie, on January 22 —the day following the incident —Japan maintained that the universally recognised usage was that a belligerent Power could demand on the high seas only those subjects of another belligerent Power who were actually embodied in the armed forces. Japan stated that she could not but regard the British action as a serious and unfriendly act against Japan. Britain replied in a Note dated January 27. in which she said: “Britain profoundly regrets the interpretation put on her action by Japan and avails herself of this opportunity to state that there was no unfriendly action whatsoever in the exercise of her right as a belligerent to stop and search neutral shipping at sea. Exercise of this right does not, in Britain's view, imply any slight upon the honour or national dignity of the neutral State involved, and this has been amply demonstrated in the present and preceding wars.”

The Note stated that Britain was aware of an organised attempt by Germany to secure the return of German mercantile marine officers and men from America. So anxious was Germany to obtain the services of these men that they were being dispatched by the long and expensive route across the Pacific, and through Japan and Siberia.

It would not be suggested, the Note urged, that as almost the entire German mercantile marine was laid up in port. Germany would have devoted part of its scanty supplies of foreign exchange to so expensive an operation if its object was not to enable the services of the men to be employed for military operations. MEN FOR SUBMARINES Later in the Note the fact was brought out that some of the Germans in question formed part of the engineroom staff's of tankers, and their special knowledge of Diesel engines rendered it practically certain that they were intended to be employed on their return for submarine services. The British Government was aware that at least four parties of these men were due to leave America almost simultaneously and that the first party of about 50 sailed by the Asarna Maru. Of the 50, 13 officers and eight technical ratings were removed. The remainder, though they were trained seamen, were without special qualifications, and were allowed to proceed. “The Japanese Government does not dispute that certain categories of enemy nationals may legitimately be iemoved from a neutral vessel, but it contends that the persons removed in the present case do not fall within the categories in question,” the Note continued.

.It was pointed out that Article 47 of the Declaration of London constituted a basis of the Japanese arguments, and the Note declared: —“The Declaration of London, never having come into force, is not binding on any State and cannot be relied on against the British Government as an authority. RIGHT OF REMOVAL “In any case, Article 47 of this Declaration is not the origin of the right to remove enemy nationals from neutral ships, since there has existed for centuries such., a practice, which became siioject to a qualifying limitation by treaty provision. Such qualification, dating from the early seventeenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, sought to limit the removal to ‘military persons and those effectively in the service of the enemy,’ but the definition is obviously inapplicable under modern conditions.

"The right would become illusory if it did not cover individuals who. though not on the peace-time military strength, are under legal liability to take their place in the enemy ranks. The latter are precisely the persons likely to be travelling in neutral ships in time of war.

The British contention, the Note said, was strongly supported by the practice followed in 1914-18. After showing that it was clear from Article 77 of the German Prize Ordinance that Germany regarded persons who "are making a voyage in order to put themselves in the service of enemy armed forces” as in precisely the same position as 'members of enemy armed forces,” the British Note proceeded: "The Imperial Japanese Government takes the contrary view about the Germans now in question. It is making a claim which the German Government could not make for itself Japan can hardly expect such a claim to be admitted by Britain in the existing circumstances. "I may add that Germany's practice in the present war has gone even beyond the provisions of its Prize Ordinance. Not only has Germany removed Poles of military age from neutral vessels in the Baltic, but she has also removed from a Swedish ship, and still holds in captivity, British fishermen who had been picked up after the destruction of their boat by German forces, though the fact that the men concerned were engaged in innocent fishing is sufficient evidence that they were not on their way to join the armed forces.

"Japan will not expect Britain to be bound by a supposed rule which is denied and disregarded by the enemy.” BRITAIN’S POLICY Having argued the general legal position and explained that of the particular Germans concerned, the Note declared:—

"Since the outbreak of the war not onlv British lives and shipping, but also neutral lives and shipping have been lost as a result of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany which is carried out in violation of Intenational Law and agreements to which Germany is a party, and with total disregard of the dictates of humanity. "Britain is determined to put an end to this method of warfare by the means at its disposal, and cannot, reconcile it wbh her obligations to Britons themselves, Io say nothing oi neutral interests, to risk innocent lives and shipping by allowing personnel to reach Germany which can be employed to perpetuate this menace.”

Mr Arita replied on February 1, expressing great pleasure at the regret expressed in the preceding British Note at the profound resentment aroused in Japan by the incident, but stating he held fundamentally different opinions from the British Government on legal arguments.

In contradiction to the British contention, he enunciated the view of Japan as follows: —"The removal of enemy nationals from neutral ships engaged on peaceful traffic on the high seas had essentially been regarded as illegal in International Law in general.”

Japan also contested the British arguments based on the German Prize rules.

In Sir Robert Craigie’s reply on February 5, in which he announced Britain's willingness to release nine of the men seized who, on examination, had been found to be relatively unsuited for military service, the Ambassador stated the inability of the British Government to accept the validity of the Japanese legal arguments and affirmed that Britain considered she was fully entitled under International Law to remove the 21 men. He further reserved the right of reply to Mr Arita’s Note in due course. OFFER ACCEPTED WITHOUT REGARDING CASE AS SETTLED. STATEMENT BY FOREIGN MINISTER. (Received This Day. 9.30 a.m.) NEW YORK. February 7. The Tokio correspondent of the United Press Association of America reports that Mr H. Arita (Foreign Minister) told the Diet that the Government had decided to accept Britain’s offer to return the nine Germans seized from the Asama Marti without regarding the case as.settled. Mi- Arita admitted the legality of the United States denunciation of the trade treaty. Ho suggested Japanese willingness to change their attitude in some cases affecting the United States' position in China. COMMON-SENSE DIPLOMACY SATISFACTION OVER RESULTS. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT. LONDON. February 7. “The Times” in a leading article on the developments in-the Asama Marti incident declares that common-sense diplomacy has produced a satisfactory a settlement as possible. The comparative speed with which agreement was reached says a, great deal for the skill and forbearance with which both sides handled the question. "The Times” diplomatic correspondent says that the British and Japanese Governments have reached a large degree of understanding, the extent of which is revealed in the Ministers' statements and the correspondent published.

The "Daily Telegraph" in a leader says that though both sides have agreed to differ on the legal aspect a solution has been found enabling Britain to maintain intact her own interpretation of the law while ensuring that similar incidents will not recur to disturb Anglo-Japanese relations. The "Daily Herald' in an editorial describes the settlement as a good example of the two Governments sensibly agreeing to differ.