Sept. 28.
Speaking in Chungking last week, Dr. H.
Kung, the President of the Executive Yuan of the Chinese Government, followed the example of statesmen in other nations by deploring the degeneration of international morality, He was referring specifically to China's appeal to the League of Nations for the application of Article 17 of the Covenant to the Sino-Japanese dispute, and his plea wa: Principally directed towards the translation of words in Geneva into action in the Far East for the general appeasement of the Nevertheless, it is not difficult to'
that his words were more important for their world-wide application rather than for the effect they were designed to have upon members of the League insofar as the distressing condition of China is concerned, Cnless the tendency towards moral bank-Tuptey 1g quickly checked," said Dr. Kun: history must repeat itself and mankind will be thrown into the pandemonium of another catastrophe greater than ever." The blame for starting the slide towards international immorality he laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Japan, whose invasion of release of the forces of war and aggression." The cynicism of that move has already been universally condemned, and only last week was this condemnation reinforced by the agreement by the League of Nations to apply [Article 17 and its corollary, Article 16, in spite of the knowledge that both articles have [proved impossible of proper execution. As 'a gesture in support of the position of China the League's consent was significant; it came fas another pungent comment on the laxity fof public good faith. But that, regrettably, Iwas all. Nothing could be done to give force to the comment, which has now found its way on to the files along with a number of other good resolutions which it has become! the fashion of the exponents of the new] morality to describe as "out of date" and "stupid In indicting Japan as the corrupter of international morality in this part of the world, Dr. Kung may have been right. But it might be argued that Japan was little more than the victim of a steady moral degeneration which had been apparent in world affairs for years before the Mukden Incident. A political philosophy had long thriven in Europe which held that expediency was the law of inter national action. The founders of this school of thought in modern times held views diamefri cally opposed to each other. But in their dealings with affairs outside their own borders they both agreed that treaties were binding only when they were very much in their own favour and that they could be discarded whenever the obligations they imposed became irksome. Thus the pledges upon which the foundations of peace and harmony rested were made unstable; there no longer existed-a criterion by which the value of a treaty or compact might be mea sured. In Russia the most solemn commitments were treated as "bourgeois prejudices," while in Italy the cynical truism was enfunclated tat treaties were not the end of the book, but merely marked the end of a chapter. "In both cases there was commend~ able frankness, and it might have been argued that, knowing these sentiments, the world knew where it stood. The contrary was the case, however. The world was left with the uncomfortable feeling that assurances held good only so long as they suited the convenience of one of the parties to them, and there was introduced an intolerable folement of uncertainty. From that moment it became inevitable that the world would have to rearm; might took the place of good faith, which collapsed like a punctured bal-
It is not orgied here that treaties, being! once signed, should continue unchanged unto eternity." 'There existed, and still exists, machinery for the revision of outworn treaties which, though cumbersome and at time irrotating to parties who' are smarting under injustice, whether real or imaginary, could nevertheless have been brought into play without threatening the peace of the world, Those nations who! opposed the use of this machinery while there was still time, are perhaps as much to blame for the present troubles in Europe and Asia as those who went ahead und took what they wanted without more ado, For expediency cuts two ways. There is the expediency: of preventing change in a situation which is to one's advantage,{as well as the expediency of force ing such a change. The one is passive, the other active, but both are equally dangerous and expensive in international affairs. It was expediency that drove Japan to the invasion fof Manchuria in 1931, and look at the cost!
Tt has meant the pouring out of much treasure and the shedding of much blood almost continuously ever since. Iti has meant the destruction of ancient cities, and wiping out of prosperous countrysides,; the death by bomb, bullet, disease, and starvation of hundreds of ' thousands of civilians whose share in the conflict, and in many cases whose Knowledge of what it was all about, was practically nothing. It has meantithe virtual rippling of a busy and happy industrial country' by mobilization for a war which, if won, can only give doubtful returns. It has paralysed trade in the Far East, and stirred up hatreds which will smoulder for generations to! come. That is part of the cost of this particular piece of expediency, and it looks as if other countriesiiin the world may [soon be called upon to pay a similar price. It is to be hoped not. (When everything is reckoned together, does It not seem a simple deduction' to abandon expediency as inexpedient, and to return to the older faith of trust in international honour'and honesty?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.