FROM JANUARY 3 TO FEBRUARY 3
UNITED STATES
Senate Approves Participation in World Court.—Following the adoption of the cloture rule to overcome delay and opposition to action on the question of American participation in the World Court, the United States Senate on January 27 approved participation by a vote of 76 to 17, which was considerably more than the required two-thirds majority. Both those who approved and those who disapproved this action regarded it as a step closer to the League of Nations. The approval of the Senate did not extend to the optional clause in the Court Protocol providing for compulsory jurisdiction.
Of the reservations, given below, which accompanied the approval, the only ones regarded as of special significance are the fifth and the two following. The fifth reservation requires the Court to give its advisory opinions publicly after public hearing, and to give no advisory opinion without the consent of the United States on any question in which the United States has or claims an interest. This apparently would modify somewhat the policy of the League Council in calling upon the Court for advisory opinions. ^Another reservation calls for approval of the reservations by all the nations who participate in the Court before the signature of the United States is affixed. Still another provides that recourse to the Court for settlement of a dispute between the United States and any other state can be had only after a treaty between the two parties—which would require approval by the Senate by a two-thirds vote. The Resolution follows:
Whereas, the President, under date of February 24, 1923, transmitted a message to the Senate, accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of State, dated February 17, 1923, asking the favorable advice and consent of the Senate to the adherence on the part of the United States to the protocol of December 16, 1920, of signature of the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice, set out in the said message of the President (without accepting or. agreeing to the optional clause for compulsory jurisdiction contained therein), upon the conditions and understandings hereafter stated, to be made a part of the instrument of adherence. Therefore, be it
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That the Senate advise and consent to the adherence on the part of the United States to the said protocol of December 16, 1920, and the adjoined statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice (without accepting or agreeing to the optional clause for compulsory jurisdiction contained in said statute), and that the signature of the United States be affixed to the said protocol, subject to the following reservations and understandings, which are hereby made a part and condition of this resolution, namely:
1. That such adherence shall not be taken to involve any legal relation on the part of the United States to the League of Nations, or the assumption of any obligations by the United States under the Treaty of Versailles.
2. That the United States shall be permitted to participate, through representatives designated for the purpose and upon an equality with the other State members, respectively, of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations, in any and all proceedings of either the Council or the Assembly for the election of judges or deputy judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice, or for the filling of vacancies.
3. That the United States will pay a fair share of the expenses of the Court, as determined and appropriated from time to time by the Congress of the United States.
4. That the United States may at any time withdraw its adherence to the said protocol, and that the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice adjoined to the protocol shall not be amended without the consent of the United States.
5. That the Court shall not render any advisory opinion, except publicly after due notice to all States adhering to the Court and to all interested States, and after public hearing given to any State concerned; nor shall it without the consent of the United States entertain any request for an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question in which the United States has or claims an interest.
The signature of the United States to the said protocol shall not be affixed until the powers signatory to such protocol shall have indicated, through an exchange of notes, their acceptance of the foregoing reservations and understandings as a part and condition of adherence by the United States to the said protocol.
Resolved, further, as a part of this act of ratification, that the United States approve the protocol and statute hereinabove mentioned, with the understanding that recourse to the Permanent Court of International Justice for the settlement of differences between the United States and any other State or States can be had only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties concluded between the parties in dispute; and
Resolved, further, That adherence to the said protocol and statute hereby approved shall not be so construed as to require the United States to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign State; nor shall adherence to the said protocol and statute be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United-States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.
Congress Approves Arms Conference Fund.—In accordance with a special message from President Coolidge the House of Representatives on January 18 approved an appropriation of $50,000 to pay the expenses of American delegates to the Preliminary Arms Conference set for February 15 at Geneva. The sending of an American delegation was also approved by the Senate and Secretary Kellogg at once notified the League of Nations Secretariat that the United States would take part. It was expected that Hugh Gibson, U. S. Minister to Switzerland, Rear Admiral Hilary P. Jones, and Brigadier General Harry A. Smith would constitute the American delegation.
It was fully expected that this first meeting of the preparatory commission would be postponed until April at least, partly to enable Germany to enter the League of Nations, and partly in the hope that Switzerland might find a way to meet the Soviet Government’s objections to sending any delegates to a meeting place in Switzerland since the assassination of a soviet representative in Switzerland last year.
No surprise was felt, therefore, when at the joint request of France, Italy, Japan, Czecho-Slovakia, and Uraguay the meeting was postponed to a date to be set at the March meeting of the League Council, but to be not later than May 15.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Mexico Explains Oil and Land Laws.—Following formal protests on the part of Ambassador Sheffield at Mexico City against the retroactive features of the new Mexican Oil and Alien Land Laws, a reply was received from Mexico on January 22, presenting the Mexican defense of these measures. Although the terms of this reply were not made public, it was thought to follow closely the statements made by the Mexican Foreign Minister to the press.
The new laws, it is estimated, would virtually confiscate American owned property to the value of $500,000,000. By a provision of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 no aliens are allowed to acquire real estate in the border coastal zone. The new land law provides for ousting foreigners who had secured property prior to 1917 by requiring that upon the death of the owners the heirs must sell to Mexicans within five years’ time.
The law further provides that outside the border zone aliens can hold land only on condition that they sign an agreement renouncing the right to make diplomatic claims as to their properties, in other words renouncing their rights as citizens of their own country. Foreign companies holding more than 50 per cent of the stock in a Mexican concern must within ten years dispose of the stock above this percentage. Against these measures, it is argued that while the Mexican government has the right to acquire any foreign owned property by purchase, these forced sales would amount to confiscation.
Last year Secretary Kellogg issued a warning to the effect that “the government of Mexico is now on trial before the world.” “It should be made clear that the United States will continue to support the government of Mexico only so long as it protects American lives and American rights and complies with its international obligations.” Recognition of the Mexican government was accorded by President Harding on the definite statement from President Obregon that the Mexican constitutional provision relating to land would not be interpreted as retroactive. The new laws, enacted under President Calles, would seem to disregard this promise.
Tacna-Arica Plebiscite.—In January, Major General William Lassiter was taken from the Canal Zone to succeed General Pershing as head of the Tacna-Arica Plebiscite Commission. General Pershing was forced to resign on account of ill health. General Lassiter took with him to Tacna-Arica a large number of United States citizens who will act as supervisors in the plebiscite set for April 15. Upon protests from Chile regarding the decisions of the commission under General Pershing and the late date set for the plebiscite, President Coolidge upheld the actions of the commission. According to reports from General Pershing, the Chilean authorities" had attempted by rioting and forced expulsion of Peruvians to prevent a fair plebiscite.
DEBT SETTLEMENTS
Italy and Britain Reach Debt Agreement.—A British-Italian debt agreement was signed by Count Volpi, Italian Foreign Minister, and Winston Churchill, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, in London on January 27. In general terms the agreement provides for the payment of an average of something over £4,000,000 annually for sixty-two years, England returning during the same period the £22,200,000 in gold deposited by Italy as security for her war loans. A clause in the agreement stipulates that England will reduce her demands on Italy in case her receipts from other war debtors and from Germany at any time exceed her debt payments to the United States, and on the other hand increases may be called for in case of reductions in these receipts.
As summed up by the Italian Minister, the Italian debt to England was 39 per cent greater than to the United States; but Italy will pay to the United States a total of $2,408,000,000 and to England only $1,346,000,000. However, Italy will make much larger payments to England in the first twenty years.
American Debt Agreements Approved.—On January 15 the United States House of Representatives approved the Italian-American debt agreement by a vote of 257 to 133, and also the agreements with Belgium, Roumania, Czecho-Slovakia, Esthonia, and Latvia. Approval of the Italian agreement was delayed in the Senate.
Representatives of Greece and Jugo-Slavia arrived in Washington in January for debt conferences, and it was anticipated that the new French Ambassador, M. Henri Bouranger, would also take up at once the settlement of the French debt. The Greek mission offered to fund her debt of $15,500,000, provided the United States would lend $32,200,000 additional, which would be the remainder of the credits originally extended. When this offer was declined, the head of the Greek delegation returned to consult his government.
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
German Cabinet Reorganized.—After six weeks’ delay the long ministerial uncertainty in Germany was ended on January 19 by an ultimatum from President von Hindenburg giving Dr. Luther and the leaders of the middle parties four hours to come to an agreement. Settlement was hastened by rumors of the possibility of setting up a dictatorship under Luther and Stresemann. The cabinet as reorganized by Chancellor Luther can count on support from the Democratic, Center, and People’s Parties (about 170 votes), and the benevolent neutrality of the Socialists; against it is an opposition composed of the radicals of both wings, and commanding also about 170 votes.
In the parliamentary debate on January 27, at which the cabinet won a vote of confidence by a narrow margin, Chancellor Luther came out definitely for German entry into the League of Nations.
Hungarian Counterfeiting Plot.—Great excitement was aroused in Hungary and throughout Europe by the revelation early in January of an immense counterfeiting plot involving Prince Windisch-Graetz of the Hungarian nobility, the chief of police of Budapest, and many high officials in the entourage of the Regent Horthy. The counterfeiting of French 1,000 franc notes was undertaken on a tremendous scale, not only to enrich the conspirators but also to demoralize French currency, and perhaps to supply funds for a putsch against the present Hungarian government. The notes were printed on the government presses used normally to print Hungarian paper currency. Prince Windisch-Graetz was leader of the Fascist element in Hungary, and a supporter of Archduke Albert for the Hungarian throne.
Dictatorship in Greece.—On January 4, General Pangalos, who since his overthrow of the Michalakopulos Ministry last July has been in virtual control of the Greek Government, declared the Greek republican constitution null and void, and established himself as military dictator. He became premier and minister of war in the new government, with Admiral Haji-kiriakos associated with him as minister of marine.
For the new dictatorship in Greece, following the example of her southern neighbors, Italy and Spain, various reasons were given: (1) weariness of the army and navy at the endless quarrels between the Venizelists and other parliamentary factions in Greece; (2) dissatisfaction at the weak role of Greece in foreign affairs, especially in view of the Russo-Turkish neutrality agreement, the Turco-Slav negotiations at Belgrade, the hostility of the Jugo-Slav press, and the defeat of Greece in the League settlement of the Greco-Bulgarian outbreak, and (3), fear of the results in case a parliamentary election were held, owing to the spread of communistic doctrines. “I considered it necessary,” declared Pangalos, “to the welfare of the country, since the whole nation is tired of worthless parliamentarians.” And again, “Henceforth with the help of the army and navy I will govern as dictator. Greece in a few months will have a fleet dominating the eastern basin of the Mediterranean, and the strongest army in the Balkans.”
As a novel expedient to reduce the government debt, Pangalos had each holder of Greek paper currency clip off one fourth of each bill. < The remaining three fourths was correspondingly reduced in value, but the one-fourth part was to be held by the owner for future redemption, when Greece should be able to pay.
FAR EAST
Japanese Forces in Manchuria.—Events in the Far East during January served to direct attention to the increasing conflict of interests between the Soviet Government and Japan, not only in the economic exploitation of the rich territory of Manchuria, lying as a kind of no man’s land between the two nations, but also in their dealings with the various powers that be in China.
During the conflict in Manchuria between Chang Tso Lin and his rebellious subordinates, Japan increased her forces in Manchuria and occupied Mukden. In a speech before the Diet on January 21, Foreign Minister Shidchara defended this move as called for by the foreign consuls in the city (this did not include the U. S. Consul) and essential for the safeguarding of foreign as well as Chinese lives and property. The Baron declared that Japanese relations with the Soviet Government were “making steady progress” as evidenced by recent Japanese contracts for oil and coal concessions in Northern Saghalien.
The following discussion of the Japanese action appeared in the New York Times, reprinted in Literary Digest of January 9:
“In sending reenforcements into Manchuria, the Japanese government is acting within its rights under the Portsmouth Treaty, which allowed it a garrison of 15,000 men in the country.
“The interests which Japan is now engaged in protecting are very real. She has 438 miles of trunk-line railway from Dairen to Changchun, and 250 miles of branch lines. Her mining and commercial interests are extensive. While Manchuria has not developed into a region for Japanese colonization, as was once expected, there are more than 150,000 Japanese residents in Manchuria, with another 200,000 in the leased territory of Kwantung, which Japan took over from Russia in 1905.
“Manchuria has not lost by the presence of the foreigner. When Russia set to building her railroads across the country east to Vladisvostok and south to Dalny and Port Arthur, it was largely an empty land. By 1908 Manchuria had 16,000,000 inhabitants. Today it has nearly 20,000,000. They are Chinese who have poured northward from the overcrowded Eighteen Provinces, with the result that Manchuria has grown faster than any other part of China. The soil, among the most fertile on earth, is yielding great crops of soya beans and wheat, and the opportunities for the latter are said to be enormous. Over this good-sized kingdom Chang Tso Lin has hitherto ruled with absolute authority, the one stable factor in ten years of Chinese turmoil. If he should now succumb it may mean that Japan will simply have to do business with another Manchurian war-lord.”
Soviet Protests at Attacks on Railway.—In the third week of January the Soviet ambassador at Peking, M. Korakhan, vigorously protested to the Chinese government and to Chang Tso Lin against the latter’s action in taking over the Eastern Chinese Railway in Manchuria, arresting the Soviet manager of the road, and committing alleged injuries to the the transport of Chinese troops with payment to be taken from China’s share of the railroad profits.
On January 22 it was reported that General Feng Yu-hsiang, the pro-Soviet leader in Central China, had postponed his projected retirement and visit to Russia.
Russia's Far East Threat.—(From Boston Herald in Literary Digest, January 9.) “Both China and Japan have cause for anxiety since Russian arms and munitions enabled General Feng-Yu-hsiang to capture the port of Tientsin. On the surface the eyes of many other nations may see at first nothing more than the good news that Feng’s success has put an end to the stoppage of railway communication between Peking and the sea. But an attempt by Bolshevist Russia to gain possession of an ice-free Pacific port is dreaded, and it is suspected that the design may lurk under the relations established between the Moscow government and the so-called Christian General.
“The Soviet commissars are apparently as eager as ever the absolute Czars were for Pacific dominion, with a naval base and a navy fit to face the flag of the sunburst. Planning recovery and extension of power in Manchuria, they began in 1920 the forcible expulsion of those Japanese who had spread over the Transbaikal and Amur provinces, and within a year they were back at Vladivostok and Nikolaievsk with no potential enemy in the rear, and with freedom to devote diplomatic artifice to winning from China the control of the Chinese Eastern railway through Manchuria. In May, 1924, they won.
“Mongolia was invaded by a Moscow force in 1921. It derided the Chinese suzerainty and set up a government of the Province, naming it the Mongolian Soviet State. Its importance to Russia is as a shorter way to the sea.
“Is Moscow scheming for a Chinese port which would menace Japanese security ? The world would like to know. Its contemplation of peace in the spirit of Locarno has a cold shadow cast upon it by this situation in the Far East.”
Japan’s Present Moderate Policy.—(By Felix Morley, writing December IS, in Baltimore Sun, January 5.) Against sharp domestic criticism Premier Kato, Baron Shidehara, his foreign minister, and, so far as can be gathered, the rest of the present cabinet, are supporting a policy of nonintervention in China. There is no disposition apparent in official circles to afford open or disguised support to Chang Tso Lin, despite the fact that this war lord has always been friendly to Japan in the past, that Japanese commerce in Manchuria has flourished coincident with his administration, and that assistance is popularly supposed to have gone to him from Tokio in earlier struggles.
The passivity of the Kato government in the present crisis is the more noteworthy because no one knows with any certainty what General Kuo’s attitude will be if Chang is forced to surrender Mukden, and because disorder in Manchuria in place of the order of recent years is probable whatever the military outcome.
It must not be supposed, however, that the Kato government will continue to stand by with folded arms in the event that vital Japanese interests in the new war zone, particularly the South Manchurian Railway, are actually assailed. I am informed by one of the most authoritative spokesmen in the cabinet that pillaging along this railway line by defeated Chinese troops, or other open attacks on Japanese property in Manchuria, would be repelled by force.
Nevertheless the government has not yet thought it necessary to reinforce the small contingents of Japanese troops and armed railway guards in Manchuria. These number about 5,500 all told, the greater part stationed in the leased zone of the Laiotang peninsula. Of course these forces could be augmented from Korea overnight, and General Ugaki, Premier Kato s Minister of War, has stated that “troops will be ready to march at a moment’s notice” if Japanese lives and property are endangered by the fighting Chinese factions.
In view of the former assertive Japanese policy in China, the temperate nature of the present government’s attitude may seem surprising. It would have been very easy to give Chang such military support as to make his overthrow by Chinese troops impossible, with the result of bringing Manchuria even more definitely into the Japanese orbit. It would have been possible to impress Great Britain with the argument that armed intervention is necessary in order to keep Manchuria free from the chaos which has overtaken China proper. And our own State Department could with much reason have been informed that to allow the overthrow of Chang is tantamount to the encouragement of Bolshevism in a province already strongly Russianized.
Moreover, there are numerous Japanese, particularly of the old bureaucratic school, who make no bones of their belief that the island empire is throwing away a golden opportunity for imperial expansion. Even men as enlightened as Viscount Goto, former Minister of Home Affairs, declare that "when Japan’s special position is menaced,” it is folly to maintain absolute neutrality in the affairs of China. General Matsui, a Japanese military adviser of Chang Tso Lin, rushed to Tokio as soon as the latter’s defeat became probable and publicly denounced the “blunders” of Premier Kato’s Manchurian policy. The Seiyukai, principal opposition party, announces determination to drive the government from office on this issue when the Diet convenes in January, following the formal opening on Christmas Day.
To all such attacks Premier Kato, with a majority of the press behind him, replies that Japan will protect her legitimate interests and not go an inch further. And it may be asserted with confidence that Premier Kato’s policy of non-interference in China will be followed by any Japanese government in ensuing months, even if the issue should grow large enough to force a dissolution of Parliament.
The reasons for this notable change in Japanese policy, the dropping of the aggressive note so generally associated with this country by Americans, arc complex. There are a number of political factors, among which our exclusion act plays a considerable part, which I shall endeavor to summarize in a subsequent article. At present it is sufficient to chronicle the fact that a distinct change of spirit has come about since the days of the famous twenty-one demands. Nor would that fact, recognized by all competent American observers in Japan, be disproved if what are diplomatically known as "incidents” should force protective action in Manchuria by Japanese troops.
The situation, of course, must not be allowed to gloss the fact that those now in charge of Japan’s policy toward China expect in the long run to gain more by pacific than by the old aggressive methods.
But beyond political and economic factors tending toward at least an outward liberalization of Japan’s Asiatic policy there is one which requires a visit to this country to appreciate. It is the earthquake of September 1, 1923, and even more the ceaseless expectation of repetition of that disaster.
Problems of the Pacific.—In a lecture at Annapolis to midshipmen of the First Class on January 29, Dr. George H. Blakeslee, Professor of History and International Relations at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, suggested the following three points for discussion:
(1) That if the U. S. Navy is engaged in serious hostilities in the Pacific in the next ten years it will be in defense of American lives and property in the treaty ports of China;
(2) That the greatest possibility of a major war between Pacific powers in the next ten years is between Japan and Soviet Russia;
(3) That even Japan and China combined have not the material resources in coking coal and iron to wage modern war on a grand scale.
In developing the first point, the lecturer called attention to the remarkable development of nationalism in China, to China’s demands for abolition of customs control and extraterritoriality, and for return of coastal concessions to Chinese sovereignty. If these demands should not be fully granted by the powers, and if China should proceed to carry them out after the example of Turkey, it might give rise to the situation envisaged in point one.
As regards point two, the speaker suggested that there is today no vital material issue unsettled between Japan and the United States; but between Japan and Soviet Russia, now imperialistic in its dream of eastward extension of soviet rule, there is the great and rich province of Manchuria, nominally Chinese, but in reality a region contested for both economically and politically by the two major powers.
As for the iron and coal reserves of the Orient, the speaker’s statements were based chiefly on the opinions of American experts who had made a special study of eastern mineral deposits.