To the Editor of the "Mobrh-Cuwn DAILY News"
Sm,—I have read with interest Mr. Sowensy's plea in the columns of neutrality zone around Shanghai. It seems to me that we already have enough international treaties to have prevented this second "Shanghai War" if-those agreements had been lived up to by the signatories. Consequently, I see no reason for the creation of a neutral zone around Shanghai, this giving rise to another fatuous belief that we here in Shanghai would be safe, by reason of solemn covenants freely entered into, Foreign Powers have repeatedly failed to uphold the neütrality of the International Settlement from Japanese aggressions as is now openly admitted on all sides, so why talk about creating a still larger neutrality zone?
Moreover, 1 differ from Mr. Sowensy that the local hostilities are contrary to Chinese interests when the problem is viewed from a military point of view. The location here is.a very convenient one for ihe Chinese to bring their main forces to bear upon the Japanese, thus forcing the latter either to sacrifice important local interests or else to fight the Chinese upon terms more nearly equal than would be the case if the hostilities were confined to North China. The results both in 1932 and thus far in 1997, in my opinion, justify the view that I have put forward as to the military aspects of the question a view, incidentally, which I believe to be shared by a number of foreign military observers. As a matter of fact, the Chinese have made quite a good showing in both of the Shanghai wars while at the same time the Japanese have displayed the intellectual poverty of their military leadership.
Personally, I have no more enthusiasm than Mr. Sowrzsv for the war here in Shanghai and would prefer to have it further away, but at the same time it seems to me more appropriate to talk about compelling the Japanese to observe the qutrality of the Incernational Settle-mest, which they are again using as y base, instead of te"xing creating a new neutrality tone reina Shanghai vith the prospect the agreement being merely hor "serap of paper." In eonclusion, í ask Mr. Sowrmev what reason he has for thinking "hat the Japanese would observe a e 1 zone around Shanghai even i^ one was creaíec I also ask what reason io thinking that the in-western Powers. would signatures to such an insisting that Japan live up to her obligation. I am thoroughly tired of these fatuous paper agreements, made only fo be dishonoured, and much prefer something based upon big battleships and heavy battalions.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.