To the Editor*of the "Nogrw-CHINA Dany News"
Sm—Since the outbreak of the Lukouchiao incident in the North I have followed, with interest, your editorials and comments on Sino-Japanese relations. I am glad to note that in these treatises you have time and again' refuted many misleading Japanese opinions and assertions and that often times, though not always, you have dial nosed the situation here with remarkable fairness and accuracy. For instance, in holding the responsibility of the Shanghai war you have perminently referred to Mr. Koki Hirota's revelation that strong naval reinforcements were not sent be-caüse of the Hungjao affairs but were on their way before that happened. The point has. been emphasized that when a mighty man overwhelmingly flaunts his strength in the face of the weaker, the mere fact that the latter, in a spontaneous or involuntary effort to stave off the inevitable blow, actually strikes first does not alter the identity of the aggressor. Your opinion in this demmection is perfectly sound and fair. With regard to international justice and humanity, your paper has made a definite stand against indiscriminate bombing and wholesale killing of non-combatants: by the Japanese forces: It deplores that the rules and standards which hold good between individuals, are being wantonly assaulted in the intér-national market place and insists that men and women hereafter should no longer palliate national aggression. In essence, it stands by the doctrine of collective security and upholds the standards based on truth, justice and the freedom of the divine in ge. harps upon the necessity Your strong disgust fe "The boycott weapon has never had t, any more than sanctions. cotting Japanese goods is regretted..."
From some leading articles you contributed in the recent past I understand that your objections to sanctions and boycott are based chiefly on the following grounds:
(1) that Great Britain has learnt bitter in recent its real objective—the restoration of ES
(3) that it would stir up. hatred of all inc the ite. of resentment would rather 3 take [NE it isan anti refuge in national solidarity; to all of oppression, Such.
as etc; and (8) that it recoils upon the head of those who apply them and never Can secure such waken unity in its support as to prove effective.
In the first place, it must he pointed out that the doctrine of collective security is not so ineffective in coercing an individual nation as it is generally conceived. In the Italo-Abyssinian war, for instance, the economic sanctions was applied for the first time by the League of Nations, and in fact, it was more a success than a failure, for actually it placed Italy in an awkward position to obtain petroleum and other important raw materials from foreign countries which were then In great demand. The only deplorable point is probably that the League did not hold on long enough to make its action more effectively felt. But that is no reason why sanctions or some form of economic pressure should not be applied against Japan at the present instance. Moreover, it is a great mistake to think that the doctrine of collective security can be maintained by means of morel pere suasion. Is not the experience in the past six years, during which China was deprived of one province after another, enough to prove the ineffectiveness of the policy of persuasive demonstrations"? Or do the events in recent weeks, during which Japan definitely and repeatedly turned down offers of mediation by third parties and boldly announced "to beat China to her knees," still give us son to believe or hope that a settlement can be reached by means of "persuasive demonstra tions"? All in all, past events ch ly indicate that when collective security is founded on the basis of moral persuasion only, there is no security, either it be collective or Individual. Critics who contend that the term "collective security" means the security and peace of the world as a whole might have forgotten the fundamental truth that individual security can never be logically separated from collective security. When one is menaced the other is necessarily affected. The effect of the Manchurian outrage upon collective security set a very good example. Most students of the world politics agreed on the point that if the British Government had supported the Stimson policy and stood firm by the League of Nations in 1981-2 instead of relying on the policy of moral persuasion, Japan's adventure in Manchuria and later in China Proper could have been checked early before it grew beyond control &nd the Italo-Abyssinian War probably would never have happened. Even your excellent journal shares these views, if I gather correctly from your editorial entitled "Anglo-American Unity." On th" whole from recent history we have learnt at least two important lessons: (1) that individual security can not be separated from collective security, and (2) that collective security can never be maintained through mere moral pereuasion. To-day there is, in fact, no collective security in existence. If there is, it is the one which is matntained by way of "persuasive demonstrations of its value with the willing consent of all parties" and which is proved by the historical fects to be utterly useless and. what more, worse than none. The vival of armament race among nations nowadays evinces that no one in the world has any more faith in the existing system of collective security, not even your own Government which appears to place more reliance on its recently adopted rear-moment programme. I doubt, therefore, if even yor yourself honestly believe in it.
Secondly, the application of econo-mie sanctions or boycott does not necessarily lead to violence. The reason or rather the reality is that no single nation is strong enough to defy the whole world. During the Italo-Abyssinian War, it is interesting that the League's sanctions against Italy did not precipitate a war although there seemed to be a danger of hostilities at the moment. Certainly if more nations had joined in the sanctions, the danger of a war of alliance could have been further reduced. Now even assuming that a certain degree of force is necessary to the application of economic sanctions, would it not be worthwhile in the cause of international justice and decency? Human history is full of records of battles and wars. There was bloodshedding nearly each time a government was formed. If people were willing to buy social justice and order in a country at the price of bloodshed, would it not be much more worthwhile to buy international justice and decency at a fair price of not supplying the aggressor with arms and other necessities to facilitate her invasion? It is true that our real objective is peace and that we should avoid employing methods which may possibly lead to violence. But in holding these views we are apt to lay an undue emphasis on peace and forget the international morality and justice on the basis of which the peace rests Peace which rests on inequity cannot be lasting. It invites, on one hand, the bellict3e nations to wage more aggressive ars in order to seek some illegal gain and, on the other hand, the aggrieved nations to war for the purpose of recovering their losses. It appears that the only Way by which peace can be restored and preserved is to maintain international justice and morality. President Roosevelt certainly struck the right note when he said, "If we are to have a world in which we can breathe freely and live in amity without fear, the peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort to uphold the Jaws and principles on which alone peace can rest secure." \So if you shun a collective action against the law-breaker under the apprehension that it might develop into an Obstacle to peace, the inevitable result is that the Dove of Peace wilt fly away. When, however, you give up all hope for temporary and false peace and insist that international law be observed and moral principles, acted upon, Peace will come of itself. Believe it or not.
Thirdly, the contention that the application of economic pressure would stir up the hatred of moderate Japanese elements and force them into an alignment with their militarists is untenable. Enlightened men in Japan ought to know that the whole world can not be wrong and they should be able to make a good moral judgement themselves. Your correspondent "American" has been good enough to relate his experience with an enlightened Japanese who urged a more positive intervention by the Westerners in order to check the outrageous action of the Japanese warlords. It may, here, be added that when driven to despair not only the moderate men in Japan will be given chances to strengthen their feeble protest but also the Japanese militarists will begin to use more introspection and to consider the protests of the saner elements in a more reasonable way.
Fourthly, the application of boycott or sanctions has been branded as an anti-social act similar to all measures of oppression such as excluding a man from a club because of his political convictions, ec. First of all, the question may be seriously asked: "Is the application of boycott or sanctions really an anti-social act?" Not at all. Rather it is a concerted action of the various nations to maintain a sort of discipline among themselves in the interests of justice and peace. You are far from being right when you compete the action with the exclusion of a man from a club because of his political convictions, You might have done yourself more justice, had you replaced the te: "political conviction" with "robbery." Now, even let it be granted that the boycott or sanctions is an anti-social act, can it be, in justice, objected to when it is merely done to retaliate a grave "anti-law" crime for the purpose only of bringing the perpetrator back to reason.
Fifthly, it is said that the application of economic pressure would recoil upon the heads of those who apply them and never can secure such unbroken unity in its support as to prove effective. There is, perhaps, no point in this argument which deserves a weighty reply. The statement is thoroughly pervaded by senses of doubt hesitation and timidity. All I can say is that if such were the convictions of your paper, nothing in this world could be accomplished, not to say of boycott or sanctions. While I have to admit that any principle cannot be considered apart from the realities, but the realities sometimes can be changed or created to suit a principle. In general, it all depends on the one who stands for the principle to fight for its realization. If an aggressive state can be firmly determined to fight in the cause of their aggression, then why can't the peace-lovíng nations be equally determined to take a collective action in the cause of international law and justice? The self-interest and selfishness are, as you have rightly emphasized, the chíef reason. But cannot they be done away with? In principle, we all know that they shall to international justice and which is essential to lasting Then, why can't we do our part by mabi ing the public opinion against them—a work which is, apparently, quite within the compass of our ability?
Now that the League of Nations and the Government of the United States have openly condemned Japan's aggression in China as a breach of her treaty obligations, notably her obligations under the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, it appears that the entire civilized world is standing, at least spiritually, behind China in her present fight against the encroacher. Apart from this moral encouragement, a movement for the boycott of Japan is spreading with amazing rapidity in the various peace loving nations. There is every hope that the moral judgment of the civilized world will soon develop into a formidable force by which Japan may be compelled to call a halt to her aggressive act in China. The success of this movement depends certainly upon the degree of support given it by the various peace-loving nations which, in turn, hinges upon the trend of public opinion of each of these nations. At this juncture it would be the duty of every supporter of international morality +o contribute his part to the establishment of such force. May I appeal to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.