Aprit 5.
The Farl. of Stanhope happily defined British policy in the Far ast in meeting the various arguments emerging from the debate in the House of Lords on Earl Peel's request for British initiative in furthering the reconciliation of China and Japan. Lord Stanhope firmly endorsed the view that Sino~ apanese friendship was essential to the peace of the Far Bast and could accordingly command the Butaln." similarly" the improve thy and support of, Great
ment in the relations between Japan and Soviet Russia was welcomed by the British Government. observers here this would seem to be the logical implication of the principles which have guided British actions and found express sion in the pronouncements of responsible British statesmen. Yet some of the speeches, as summarized in the cables, suggest that there is a curiously' vague indecision oppressing the minds of the Government's interrogators—they can hardly be called critics. Lord Peel and Lord Marley seemed to have more accurately sensed the realities of the situation than some of their colleagues. Lord Peel, while recognizing the misapprepensions which might arise from immediate canvassing of the position under the Washington Treaty, was clearly appreciative of the need for maintaining the traditions of Sino-British friendship as 'a natural corollary to amicable and perceptive understanding—with Japan. Lord Marley went further with some precision when he supported a sympathetic regard for Japan's own economic needs and possible interests in the development of Mongolia and advocated the association of Soviet Russia with any international discussions which might be framed to deal with Far Eastern policies. And, in sounding a cautionary note against plans which might appear to involve a revival of the economic domination of China, Lord Marley, was far nearer tothe spirit of the Government's reply than some of the other speakers.
Japan's secession from the League was taken by Lord Peel as the outward and visible sign of the weakening of the ties between Europe and the Far East. No doubt the present preoccupations of Great Britain with the problems of European settlement have accentuated that impression. It was fitting, therefore, that Lord Stanhope should implicitly re-affirm the Government's steady adherence to re~ sponsibilities which her interests in the Far East have created. Some of the views expressed in the course of the depute seemed to exaggerate China's admittedly serious difficulties and, at the same time, to cast doubt upon the reality of Sino-Japanese friendship. These views received heightened colour from the obsession which seems to afflict critics like the Duke of Atholl. The Duke and. those who appear to be associated with him, affect to see in the Far Eastern situation a dangerously subversive China by the correction of whom at Japanese hands the rest of the world, including Great Britain, may greatly benefit. This: attitude derives, perhaps, from an imperfect appreciation of the actual progress made in China in recent years and, also, from an inveterate desire to traverse the controversy which began with the Mukden incident of September 1931, Japan is not treated any: more justly than China by such a perversion of events. When China and Japan are gradually settling themselves down to the task of smoothing out their differences, it 19 not the part of statesmanship to force the pace or to indicate a goal with the collective system Geneva—is inclined to give excess sive attention to the interests of other powers, so long as she is con~ vineed that her communion with China is being efficiently served.
Lord Stanhope gave such views! no encouragement. He stuck to the essential facts when he succinctly declared that it was "in the {interests of China and Japan to Jcome to terms and in the interests lof the whole world" Petulantly Impatient orities who have fever~ ighly seen, in any doubt of Japan-fosse wisdom, hostile provocation of a champion of Far Eastern stability are now clearly ill at ease. They Ihave to be protected against them-[selves in their apprehensions of the trend of Japanese policy. It would be better if they would abandon the desire to assert their dislike ithe League by unseasonably urg-Ing the very sort of action which, not so many months back, they were gratuitously deprecating. The plain truth is that Japan and Cnina fare recognizing the importance attending to their common need. Japan wants China's friendship. and China wants Japan's goodwill. In the attainment of that aim, they fare both prepared, presumably, to make the appropriate adjustments lof policy by compromise and toler~ Jance. Herein the duty of friendly powers les clearly along the line 30 well @efined by Lord Stanhope. Looking at the situation from the point of view of Japan, it will be agreed that, having, rightly or wrongly, dissociated herself from the League, the adaptation of her policy to the general requirements of international amity must be viewed in a spirit of strict regard for actualities rather than specula~ tions. This will entail a broad vision which refuses to be obstructed by casual manifestations but looks further afield to the needs of Japan and the effect of those Ineeds on the ce-operation proposed between her and China. Tt is not helpful, at this stage, to join with Lord Lothian in stressing Japan's departure from the policy of collective action, nor to follow Lord Addington into the mysteries of a hypothetical fait accompli. And, if fan eye be cast to the present per~ plexities of Europe, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the situation im the Far East may eventually 60 develop that the prob-tem of recovering the world's faith in the League will be automatically solved, to the mutual satisfaction fof alt' concerned. The issue cannot be forced. It must be allowed to work itself to solution by the natural course of events, helped, it to be hoped, by more generous understanding than seems available to a highly suspicious world at this moment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.