The Brussels Conference has failed to do more than affirm the importance of an international code which it has been unable to enforce. Its expression of opinion that the suspension of hostilities in China would best serve the interests of all parties to the Washington Treaty marks the sense of impotence which has prevailed. There is no ground for exultation over this further proof of the breakdown of the safeguards which statesmanship had hoped to make the effective guarantees of ordered relations between nations. There is equally no ground for casting aspersions on the good faith of those who sought through the Conference to provide a practical solution for Sino-Japanese differences, It was hoped that when President Franklin Roosevelt won the support of other signatories to the Treaty for their meeting in Conference, the way was clear to ensure the ce-operation of the principals in the dispute under review. That hope was only half fulfilled, Therein lies the cause of the failure. Experience can be given its cheap triumph over hope, but in the long run the principles on which that hope was made to rest cannot be rejected. It is amazing to observe that some commentators exhibit gratification in the breakdown. To what future do they look if the world is to continue to be exposed to the periodical dislocations which the disregard of international pledges must produce, if the bitter lessons of the last few years are any guide? Nations, thus seized by an ecstasy of repudiation of their solemn words, unwittingly prove the danger of their situation by profuse offers of further assurances the liquidity of which is obviously doubtful to say the least of i Nor is it without significance that the sabre-rattler invariably seeks justification by levelling charges of broken faith, In short the very process of pact-breaking is based on an admission that it is inherently antisocial. So, despite the latest evidence of the unreadiness of the world to face the realities of international politics, the belief that sooner or later the pressure of events will bring statesmanship back to a fundamental be-conciliation of deeds with words stands unshaken.
There is a tendency in the Japanese press to argue that the Brussels Conference has been unfairly used by Great Britain, in particular, to put Japan at a disadvantage Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. The Conference may have failed to achieve concrete results but its insistence on the importance of international agreements derives from a general apprehension of the danger in which the world lies as the result of repeated disregard of that principle. Mr. Walter Lippman, the eminent American writer, seems to encourage that error when he assails his own Government's participation in the Conference by arguing that thereby it essays a middle course between adherence to League principles and reve: sion to "old fashioned ideas of neutrality". He maintains that the United States of America, having decided to be neutral in the desire to avoid foreign entanglements, should avoid a policy of "pinpricks, mild sanctions and provocative resolutions". There is good sound sense in that contention so far as it goes but it altogether evades the issue. The Brussels Conference was not concerned with League principles. It was assembled in no breach of the policy of neutrality. Its authority to discuss the Sino-Japanese conflict was directly derived from the Washington Treaty. Whether the League be right or wrong, whether collective security be folly or a noble ideal, were issues right beyond the scope of the Conference. It simply had to consider what should be done by the signatories to a formal pact when circumstances suggested that the obligations jointly and severally accepted by them had been affected by the actions of one or more of their number. That prosaic procedure will be appreciated by any private individual who, in the course of business routine, has entered into a contract.
Japanese newspapers seem bent on adopting a minatory tone in their exhortations to Great Britain. Judging from impressions made on recent visitors to Japan they have not been successful in impregnating the people with that sentiment, for the unaffected courtesy, good nature and friendliness usually experienced by British travellers there are still to be found as a pseudonymous letter from a prominent Shanghailander amply demonstrates. The fact is that this whipping up of animosity against Great Britain smacks a good deal of mechanical artificiality. It is a formidable fact all the same, for there is never any telling where such an unfortunate manipulation of an obsequious press will end. Great Britain has no reason to be ashamed of her efforts since the War to support international ce-operation. She disarmed to an extent which has exposed her to the gravest possible risks in the hope of setting an example, Although Japan in 1931 broke the ranks of the Powers who were persevering in the pursuit of a sympathetic and patient policy in China, Great Britain, bound to maintain her point of view, sedulously endeavoured to preserve friendly contacts with her former ally, Whatever criticism may have been made by British commentators on the policy adopted by Japan, there has been in it far more of sorrow than anger. Concerned as a great commercial Empire with the growing fondness of impatient nations for a realism which often has been merely a synonym for flouting canons of accepted conduct, Great Britain has striven to throw her weight behind efforts for the restoration of confidence and fair dealing in international politics. She has been impelled reluctantly to recognize that her weakness in armament has been misunderstood and actually undermined her authority. She is rapidly repairing that defect. When that process is completed she will not willingly surrender the principles to which she still attaches the highest practical importance, for she expects that it will automatically assist her to give more effective support to influences for peace. Meanwhile, in the face of persistent calumny and deliberate misconstruction of her actions, she is not disposed to falter in upholding policies abandonment of which would belie her traditions and do violence tó her convictions. To suggest that this if an anti-Japanese attitude is to be blind to actualities,—or worse still to saddle Japan with a mentality which, so far, even the most partisan critic has not yet imputed to her.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.