In its present frame of mind the Japanese Government "has seen ft to reply to the second invitation from Brussels in term: which are emphatic gnd leave no room for compromise. It has met a courteous—but! firm recapitulation of the facts of the Sino-'Japanese crisis and a reasoned exposure of the realities of the situation. Japanese critics are already dismissing the Powers: arguments as academic and claiming that! $2] the realities are to in the presence! the realities are to be found in the pres of powerful Japanese armies in possession of vast portions of Chinese soil. The Brussels Conference does not fail to note that concrete manifestation of Japanese policy, but it draws therefrom different deductions.
International "anarchy must result from condonation of such a cynical exercise of armed might in carefully judged circumstances which have disposed Japan _to believe that her actions cannot be checked by the rest of a pre-occupied world. Japan's assertion that the issue is solely between her and China is torn to shreds by the irre-tuiable contention that the present conflict has involved third parties in grave damage life and property. It is also shown beyond any possibility of misunderstanding that! the attack on China has raised the very issue with which the Nine Power Treaty's signatories are explicitly concerned. Italy alone dissents. That championship of Japan is worth as much as the doctrine of international anarchy can achieve in securing] the world's endorsement—surely very little unless civilization has decided to commit suicide, It is all very well to belittle the logical method which the Conference brings to bear on the situation; unless diplomacy'
to avail itself of the discovery of some fifth dimension the elimination of logic spells acceptance of chaos as the proper inspiration of world statesmanship. The Aivorce of logic from realities is indeed! chaotic in itself. The two are interdependent, This may be incompatible with the dictatorial technique which prescribes superiority. in gun-power as the sole repository of truth; Wt cannot, however, be flouted by those who desire to maintain sanity and to observe accepted canons of decency in international relationships.
'So, Japanese policy has been examined by! the Conference as defined in correspondence and the published views of Japanese statesmen. China is undergoing military correction for the purpose of changing her' Government's policy, of exoreizing its anti-Japanese emotions, of ensuring Sino-Japanese economic ce-operation. Those are! supposed to be the realities crystallized in that material reality—the present trampling of Japanese feet on Chinese territory, Yet, applying this passion for reality, would it not be more correct to assert that Japan has Iaunched this expedition against China for the purpose of securing control of the! economic resources of the five northern, ravinees, of safeguarding her continental Position against the imagined danger of aggression from Russia, and of solving her own domestic diffculiies by creating a totalitarian state such as naturally emerges now from the creation of the Imperial General Staff on a war footing? How can successfully maintained that realities of that kind have no concern for signatories; to a Treaty which professed to guarantee the territorial integrity of China? The reply which Japan makes is in effect a bland defiance: she tells her colleagues that they, fare far too busy with their own affairs—therefore physically too weak—to exert control over her actions. That is her logic. At the same time she expects by the process of negotiation to obtain means for solving her economic and financial problems as they affect her trade development. Logic has suffered a sad sea-change in the search for, Far Eastern stability by Tokyo.
Since reality is greatly in demand, it ma: be pertinent to the situation in which Japan now finds herself as she studies the Conference's dispassionate exposition. The key may lic In the concluding paragraph in which the majority of the Powers reserve consideration of what is to be their common attitude in a situation where one party to an international {treaty maintains, against the views of all other parties, that an action which it has taken does: not come within the scope of that treaty and Sets aside provisions of the treaty which other parties hold to be operative in the cit cumstances.
Japan has in advance refused to resort to the normal procedure where such a situation arises as between private citizens—presenta~ ion of the case to a recognized tribunal. She may regard this unemotional warning as a brutus ful men and may even contemplate denunciation of the Treaty as the proper retort. Thus is the predilection for "living dangerously" carried to its logical] conclusion. Logic, however, is not one-sided. The world's affairs cannot be con-
Considered in that sense, Japan's policy Srouses fear, not so much for China or other nations, as for herself. The reality by which she claims the right to reject the logical implication of pledges may be uncomfortably applied to examination of future developments in her regard when the validity of pledges becomes a vital factor for assessment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.