To the Editor of the "NomrH-CHiNA Dany News"
Sm;—I have had great respec: for your fair attitude in the whole Sino-Japanese controversy and conflict during the past five years. Although I agree the way should be kept open for mediation at all times, I do beg to differ with you on the question of the application of economic, sanctions.
The procedure outlined in a recent cable by the Chinese League of Nations Union to its associated unions in other countries embodies both of these values. That procedure suggested that when the conference of Pacific powers built around the Nine Power Treaty convenes it should work for the following steps:
1. Get both sides to cease fire.
2. Require the withdrawal of the invading armies.
3. Secure mutual pledges of nonaggression.
Carry "out mediation toward a. general settlement of their outstanding differences.
If Japan refuses to ce-operate in or obstructs these four steps, then ihe conference "should proceed to apply economic sanctions- against Japan until she withdraws her invading army.
Of course there would have to be very definite time limits set for at least the first three steps, or else Japan would~drag out the negotiations in the same way that Mussolini did in Ethiopia and in the Spanish question.
But through the last fifteen years of League activity, the first four steps have come to be recognized as the best way to work for the seitlement of military conflicts. To talk of mediation while the Japanese army occupies one-third of Chinese territory is like expecting an, impartial judgment from a man at the point of a pistol, Such procedure so emphasizes that in the first place boycott pr tions applied by an individual nation or class witha nation in retabation against its oppressors and economic sanctions decided upon by a body such as the League of Nations or a conference built around the Nine Power Treaty. In the first instance you have vengeful retaliation at its height; in the second instance you have*a body representing world opinion calmly and judicially hearing the case of both sides and then deciding that economic sanctions are the only recourse left for stopping the wanton invasion of a neighbouring country—unless they resort to war. Such a body may not have complete Divine wisdom, but it is the nearest in human affairs that we can come to an impartial organization for deci international issues, (Excepting' the World Court but its jurisdiction is limited.)
You and mary other sincere seekers of peace apd justice fear that after the decision, to apply economic sanctions, their operation will lead to war, The best guarantee against this is the universality of application of the sanctions in the sense that a great majórity of the nations of the world ce-operate in the sanctions. It is this universality that distinguished such action from an al-lance of a few powers to restrict the imperial expansión of another. We are not out to "stop Japan" in the sense of stopping her development but to stop the methods she is using—war and aggregsion—because if allowed in this case, they will tend to spread to other cases and lead us to world anarchy. Both their universality and their international determination will' prevent economic sanctions from leading to they are internationally does not constitute a "unfriendly act" If they are universally applied, one or three nations would not be sg reckless as to declare war on the whole world.
You make much of the failure of sanctions against Ttaly's aggression in Ethiopia. But it is interesting that those sanctions did not lead to war. It any individual nation had acted in that way, Italy would have felt almost compelled to declare war on it, True, Mussolini was able to bluff England and France into keeping the League from extending the sanctions by the threat of war, but whether he would have carried out his bluff if it had been called is pure specula-lion. The important point is that the sanctions against Italy were only half-heartedly, very slowly applied and the United States did not partly cipate. Furthermore, it the world's fet experiment in such procedure and therefore as inadequate a basis for condemning its future use as the first experimental automobile would have been for stopping the development of the automobile.
You fear the consequences of economic sanctions for the population of the country against which they are applied. It is to be admitted they will cause hardship and suffering because of the dislocation of industry in that country and in some industries in the countries applying the sanctions. But over against this must always be weighed the fact that terrible suffering is being caused by the Japanese invasion of China, not only in China, but also to families in Japan whose fathers and sons are conscripted over night for military service.' To this must be added the future probable suffering in other countries if modern war is allowed spread.
In order the minimize the suffering brought about by sanctions, foodstuffs and medical supplies should not be included. This is not a serious consideration in the case of Japan because she is practically self-supporting as far as foodstuffs are concerned. But if is a good precedent to be established in the use of sanctions. Furthermore, relief for the unemployed in Japan could be sent by other countries—though this may not prove feasible in practice.
Like any use of force and coercion, the application of sanctions must be carefully safeguarded by guarantee. ing impartial decision and as much humanitarian restraint as possible in their application. But the world has not yet reached the point where we can get along' without some use of force in carefully restricted forms. Economic sanctions are such an instrument which merits thoroughgoing trial by the nations of the world interested in abolishing war.
Yours for a*world in which ever, nation, strong or weak, shall have the security to develop aad progress to the limit of its own ability AMERICANA.
Nanking, Oct, 11.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.