The Waikato Times WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1941 JAPAN’S FOUR POINTS

Waikato Times, Volume 129, Issue 21582, 19 November 1941, Page 4

The Waikato Times WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1941 JAPAN’S FOUR POINTS

Japan, according to General Tojo, has taken her stand, in the negotiations with the United States, on four points which represent demands rather than a basis for negotiation. All of the four points seek concessions from the United States and none suggests any contribution by Japan. General Tojo demands that third Powers must not “interfere” in China; the lifting of the “economic blockade which is bringing Japanese foreign trade to a standstill; Britain, the Netherlands East Indies and the United States must promise to “end encirclement”; normal trade, which is vital to Japan, must be restored. General Tojo naively adds that if these objects were realised by diplomatic negotiations it would be a matter for gratification not only for Japan but for the cause of peace in East Asia and the world in general. President Roosevelt could present his counter-claims in a single “point.” He could ask Japan to attend to her own affairs and refrain from interfering in the business of other independent Pacific peoples; in which case cordial relations could be restored at once. Stripped of “Axis” ambitions, the problem is really very simple. “Third Powers” are not “interfering” in China. They are simply aiding China to preserve her independence against an aggressor. The “economic blockade” of which Japan complains is a perfectly natural defence against Japan’s own threats. Why should Britain and the United States supply the Japanese with the weapons which they threaten to use aggressively? Alleged encirclement falls into the same category, and so does the remaining point—the restoration of normal trade. Millions of people who are hoping for the success of the negotiations at Washington would have been glad to read in the Japanese “points” some indication of an intention to give as well as take. Surely General Tojo must realise that the demands which he has made are the very premises upon which the United States has made a stand. Are the “third Powers” to stand aside and witness the destruction of China or any other country which Japan might desire to subjugate? That was the very action which, years ago, initiated the orgy of aggression. Japan descended upon Manchukuo in defiance of the League of Nations and of all other advice. Japan “got away with it,” and Mussolini was not slow in following suit in Abyssinia. To that process there must be an end. The world stands again where it stood when Manchukuo fell the first victim. There is this difference in the situation today, however. The United States then was not a member of the League of Nations. Now the American nation, one of the most powerful in the world, has joined a very effective league which has decided that aggression must cease and that order shall be restored to international relations. The Japanese policy took root because the defenders of the rule of law were weak and vacillating. Jungle law was adopted by the Powers which have now banded themselves into the Axis. Japan is attempting to bring to a mixed tribunal a case which is founded on the law of the jungle. It is another test case. The problem is to prove to Japan that the greater part of the world does not subscribe to the law she quotes. It is another turning point, towards or away from civilisation.