It is unfortunate that the occurrence of the submarine disaster in Liverpool Bay did not permit of this journal dealing with the situation created by the statement made at last Friday's Press conference to the effect that Mr. T. Kawai's remarks in Tokyo on the subject of Chinese sovereignty and the International Settlement had been misreported, and that a leading article appearing in this column on May 30 had consequently been based upon false premises. It is, perhaps, as well that the history of the affair should be recalled. On Wednesday, May 24, Mr. Kawai, who is the official spokesman of the Tokyo Foreign Office, in the course of a statement made to Japanese newspapermen is alleged to have made pronouncements which were published in the "Asahi." From that newspaper they were translated and published in the "Japan Advertiser," which Reuter quoted in carrying an account of the statement in its normal service. Let it be made quite clear that comparison between Reuter's abbreviated message and the account which appeared in the "Japan Advertiser" shows quite clearly that the agency did in fact adequately convey what had appeared in that newspaper. This journal in its issue of May 30 duly commented upon what, if Mr. Kawai had been correctly reported, was a most important and startling announcement. He is reported to have stated Japan is just now taking action in China with its national destiny at stake under conditions tantamount to war. The object of these actions is to place the sovereignty of China under the control of Japan. In the light of this circumstance Japan should be regarded as placing the entire territory of China under Japanese control.
On May 29, however, Mr. Kawai, according to the "Japan Times," the closeness of whose relations with the Japanese Government is well known, reported Mr. Kawai had been incorrectly reported, the gist of what he actually said being, according to that journal, as follows Mr. Kawai's alleged statement was made in connection with the international settlements in China.
So long as the hostilities continue, it is natural that the Chinese territories occupied by the Japanese should be under military control, Mr. Kawai said. He reiterated that Chinese sovereignty has been suspended but not lost in the international settlements. The adjustment between the use of military force on the part of Japan and the judicial administration by the foreign Powers in the international settlements is a delicate matter, but Japan has the right to resort to force in uprooting military acti of the enemy in the foreign conces si Mr. Kawai said.
On June 1, the local Japanese spokesman informed the Press Conference of the alleged reporting error and gave what purported to by the gist of Mr. Kawai's statement, which follows 'A settlement or concession does not constitute a territory, but simply an area where a foreign country or countries exercise administrative rights, "so that only to that extent China's territorial sovereignty is temporarily limited or suspended there.
"In the areas under Japanese occupation, Japan aims, so long as hostilities are being carried out, at expelling China's sovereignty from the areas, and placing it under Japan's control.
"Since the anti-Jepanese terrorism in the settlements is executed under the direct order from the Chungking Government, it is to be regarded as a part or extension of China's military operations. Therefore Japan is quite justified in the attempt to clear anti-Japanese elements out of the settlements."
The point at issue is raised by the use of the phrase in the first of the two corrections to the effect that "Chinese sovereignty has been suspended but not lost in the international settlements," and in the second of the use of the expression "temporarily limited or suspended there," meaning "a settlement or concession." Had either of those two corrections been available on May 29 when the editorial comment of May 30 was written, it would have made very little difference to the sentiments then expressed, for the article in question dealt with the gradual development of the Japanese policy towards China, which, on the facts, clearly aims at subjugation and exploitation of the country. In making a choice between words and actions any commentator who depended wholly on the former to the exclusion of the latter would very soon find himself at sea. If it is conceded, which it is not, that the temporary suspension of a country's sovereignty can be possible where no war exists, and the hostilities have been described as being against a party and not the nation, it cannot even then be accepted that the international settlements and foreign concessions "pass under the temporary sovereignty of the invading Power. This view is strengthened by the fact that during the Sino-Japanese War the neutrality of Shanghai was recognized both by Japan and China.
It is obvious that if the Japanese contention could be accepted, it would mean that the foreign areas of Shanghai would depart from their juridical neutrality and would to all intents and purposes become just as much enemy, territory, so far as the Chinese Government is concerned, as those portions of China which have passed into the possession of the Japanese armies. It is clear, therefore, that permanent or temporary alteration of the status of the various foreign areas in China, especially any change which would recognize the Japanese assumption of a sovereignty, which they claim is suspended but not lost, would amount to a complete breach of neutrality and the breakdown of the whole system upon which those foreign areas are founded. But the point has to be made that up to the present what has been declared regarding the Japanese policy towards the various foreign areas has failed to include this degree of temporariness which is emphasized in the two versions of the correction of the original report of Mr. Kawai's statement. Indeed it may be stated without equivocation that the Japanese demands so far as they have been made public, certainly so far as the International Settlement of Shanghai is concerned, clearly contemplate a permanent readjustment of the methods of administering the Settlement. Redrafting of the Land Regulations would be obviously something with a wholly permanent significance, as would also be some of the other changes demanded. It is not, however, possible to concede that Chinese sovereignty, so far as the International Settlement of Shanghai is concerned is even temporarily suspended. The authority of the administration is derived from the Land Regulations which are in effect the. charter of the port. A party to that charter are the heirs, successors and assigns of the government which originally approved them, and the Chinese Government at Chungking, being recognized as the sovereign power in the country, and being still in existence, must still be regarded as such a party. To deny that contention, and to admit of the other would be to admit that the mere irregular occupation of portions of a nation's territory would be sufficient to deprive it of its sovereign rights and powers. That is all these present hostilities amount to, the informal and irregular occupation of China's territory possibly conveying potentialities of conquest but certainly not rights.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.