AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
Judge Moore on Internationalism. —Of chief interest in the July issue of the quarterly Foreign Affairs are three articles on American foreign policy and the situation in the Far East. The first, “An Appeal to Reason,” by the distinguished American authority on international law Judge John Bassett Moore, is a strong condemnation of the whole internationalist trend of American foreign policy in recent years. Judge Moore says,
Nothing could more convincingly betray the fustian texture of the new psychology and will to peace than the circumstance that among its postulates there is not one which is not contrary to palpable realities, to the teachings of history, and to the formulation, in universal legal principles, of the results of all human experience.
This is pretty sweeping. The Kellogg pact and the effectiveness of world public opinion as a deterrent to war are given similar short shrift. Consultative pacts are described as “of all conceivable devices the most pernicious,” since, as in the case of the Anglo-French entente in 1914, they may commit a nation to unforeseen danger of war. The author speaks of the Secretary of State in the preceding administration as
the spokesman, and a sincere spokesman, of a group identified with a certain type of mind and thought, and with a belief in methods and measures, which I, who modestly pray for peace in my own time, profoundly distrust, not only because they have no moorings in earth or sky, but also because they have infected many of my countrymen with confused notions of law and of conduct which, while they endanger our most vital interests, hold out hopes of a partisan intervention that encourage European governments to defer the readjustments . . . essential to peace.
The second of the articles, “The Japanese Monroe Doctrine” by Professor George H. Blakeslee, points out the various interpretations in Japan of the so-called Japanese Monroe Doctrine, ranging from pan- Asiatic leadership to the “right to live,” i.e., the right to expansion of economic and political control. Professor Blakeslee notes as defects in the analogy between Japan’s position in the Far East and that of the United States in the Caribbean: (1) that Japan is a country with a small area and population as compared with China; (2) that the United States has not used nor required force to push her economic expansion; (3) that the policy of the United States has been to maintain the status quo in the Caribbean, that of Japan to overthrow the status quo in Manchuria to her own advantage.
The third article, on the Philippine problem, by Professor Ralston Haynes of the University of Michigan, is an argument against the Philippine Independence Bill. To carry it into effect, he concludes,
may well produce international chaos and internal strife in the one Far Eastern area within which American responsibility is the most direct and inescapable. For the United States to follow such a course, while vigorously asserting that it will protect its individual interests and meet its world peace in the Orient, would be to pursue a policy of divided councils, impotence, and futility.
The views expressed in these articles, as well as those in the Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Science, summarized below, would seem to indicate a notable shift in the trend of American opinion on foreign affairs.
American Policy in the Pacific.— The July issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science is made up almost entirely of some twenty articles by eminent authorities on the situation in the Far East and American policy in the Pacific. Notable among these are discussions by Senator Hawes, Governor W. Cameron Forbes, and Vice-Governor N. W. Gilbert on the Philippine problem; an article by former Assistant Secretary of State W. R. Castle, Jr., on “Recent American Foreign Policy in the Far East”; another by Roy H. Akagi on “Japan and the Open Door”; and many discussions of Japanese economic problems and her policy in Manchuria.
Perhaps the common verdict on the latter topic is expressed in “Manchuria— the Race for New Resources,” by F. R. Eldridge, in the paragraph:
For Japan there is no military or diplomatic retreat, because there is no economic retreat. Millions of unborn Japanese are the dominant factors that set Japan’s diplomatic course. The resources of Manchuria must support them. In time, perhaps, the resources of other undeveloped and empty areas of the world, now held in fief for unborn children of other nations, may have to be given up to the virile race that has proved itself unconquerable in Asia. No League of Nations pact, no Lytton Report, can prevent it. The battle for the world’s resources is on, and to the victor belong the spoils. As long as resources are to be had, we cannot expect restriction to population growth.
In this connection, it is stated in another study of Manchurian resources that plans are in progress to double the Southern Manchurian Railway Company’s shale oil distillation plant at Fushun, so that it will be able to supply about 10 per cent of Japan’s petroleum requirements. The total output of the plant is now purchased by the government for the Navy—an arrangement which serves also as a subsidy.
As usual, Professor Tyler Dennett’s article in the magazine on “The Open Door Policy as Intervention” is full of good sense, as in the passage following:
Americans are a funny folk. They applaud lofty moral sentiment but they are rarely ready, outside of the Western Hemisphere, to take the next step, to make effective the sentiment which they applaud. The time comes when they are asked to put up or shut up. They do neither. . . . We have just been passing through another chapter in this spasmodic policy in the Far East. Again we have embarked upon a policy of intervention, with high moral sentiments, the defense of the peace machinery. The American people have responded as they did to John Hay’s notes on the Open Door. But soon will come the test: shall we put up or shut up? Probably we shall again do neither. . . . The policy of the Open Door, of the integrity of China, and its newer cousin, the nonrecognition “of any situation, treaty, or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant and obligations of the Pact of Paris,” while apparently as pacific and humanitarian as the Sermon on the Mount, are in fact no more so than the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence, for both of which much blood had to be spilt.
Altogether, the Annals provides a collection of material of great value to the specialist in Far Eastern affairs, though many of the articles cover familiar ground.
The Next War for Peace.—The July issue of the Outlook, under the editorship of former Governor “Al” Smith, contains an interesting if sensational article of this title by Martin Somers, a former press correspondent in the Orient. According to Mr. Somers, Manchuria is now “part of the new Japanese Empire in Asia which the Seiyukai or Japanese war party confidently expects will rule the world in fifty years or so.” With this new Japan the United States has been “drifting steadily and idiotically toward war— insulting Japan on one hand and reducing our navy with the other, a challenge to fight and an invitation toward conquest.” Then follows a comparison of the American and Japanese navies, based on figures published in the June (1933) Naval Institute Proceedings, and a picture of the imaginary war, beginning with the Japanese capture of Guam and the Philippines, followed by some two years of operations around the Japanese mandate islands, and ending with a peace hastened by sabotage on the part of Chinese workers in Japan’s continental possessions or by a naval action off Hawaii. The means of avoiding this war, according to the writer, is recognition of Manchukuo; a “lighter touch” in international finance; and insistence on strict adherence to the 5:3 ratio, with assurance that our forces have this advantage on the seas every day in the year. “With such a right hand extended in friendship to the new first-class power out East, and such a left hand cocked for a knockout blow in case the right is refused, the danger of an American- Japanese war would not be one-tenth as great as it is today.”
END OF ECONOMIC CONFERENCE
Conference Void of Results.—Three weeks before its final demise the London Economic Conference was given its deathblow by President Roosevelt’s bluntly phrased message of July 3 in which he refused to steady the fluctuations of the American dollar even for the duration of the conference. It would be a “catastrophe,” the President declared, if the conference should “allow itself to be diverted by the proposal of a purely artificial and temporary expedient affecting the monetary exchange of a few nations only.” Upon this refusal to stabilize American currency, the gold nations at London were for immediate adjournment; but after an eloquent appeal by Secretary of State Hull and a more placatory message from his chief, the steering committee decided to prolong the conference on a safe agenda with monetary issues barred. The end came peacefully on July 26, when the Conference recessed for an indefinite period. In truth, the world had moved so fast toward economic nationalism in the months just preceding and even during the conference, that action along international lines was quite out of the picture.
Though the conference was in general devoid of results, favorable action was taken on Senator Key Pitman’s plan to stabilize the value of silver and increase its use in subsidiary coins, the United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Peru agreeing to absorb a total of 35,000,000 ounces of silver annually for the next 5 years. Efforts to secure a world wheat reduction agreement were to be renewed at another meeting on August 29. The chief producing nations—the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Australia—were agreed in principle on a 15 per cent reduction of acreage, but found difficulty in inducing the European powers to remove I the barriers on importation of grain and restrict their own production. In the field of currency, the units of the British Empire announced an agreement to stabilize exchange rates among themselves, and also to work for higher prices of commodities. Secretary of State Hull on July 21 introduced a general proposal for renewing the tariff truce which would end with the close of the conference.
EUROPEAN POLITICS
Soviet Peace Pacts.—In the midst of the futilities of the Economic Conference, the Soviet representatives in London succeeded in safeguarding their government by an 8-power non-aggression pact with all her neighbors on the southern and western frontiers—Poland, Esthonia, Latvia, Rumania, Turkey, Persia, and Afghanistan. In the agreement an aggressor state was defined as the first to commit anyone of the following: (1) a declaration of war; (2) invasion of another state even without declaration of war; (3) attack by land, sea, or air forces; (4) naval blockade; (5) support of or refusal to put down armed bands organized in its territory for invasion of another state. Another regional agreement of somewhat similar character was signed by Russia, Turkey, and the Little Entente powers—Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Rumania. For his peace activities, it was suggested that M. Litvinoff ought to get the next Nobel prize. Even with the United States there were prospects of a better understanding, marked by a deal for the Russian purchase of 70,000 bales of American cotton to be paid for by an R.F.C. loan of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, and by reports that this country would recognize the Soviet Republic in the near future.
Germany and the Church.—Early in July the Catholic Center party in Germany, along with some of its smaller allies, was forced out of existence, thus completely ending organized political opposition to the Nazis. It was understood, however, that Centrist representatives in the Reichstag would be permitted to retain their seats as Hitlerite “guests.” Though Catholics in Germany thus lose their political organization, their position under Hitlerism is in a measure safeguarded by the new concordat between the Reich and the Vatican, signed at Rome on July 20. This agreement, supplementing those already in existence with certain German states, is said to assure the continuance of religious education and Catholic cultural organizations.
Nazi Interference Curbed.—Declaring that the violence of revolution must now be ended and peaceful evolution begun, Chancellor Hitler in July spoke strongly against ignorant interference in industry. Before the close of the month Nazi agents or commissars were removed from department stores and other business organizations. Realizing that the continuance of his power will depend in the end on the success of his economic program, Hitler is evidently ready to discipline the unruly elements in his party.
Balkan-Italian Relations.—The better understanding between France and Italy, regarded by some as the chief outcome of the 4-power European poet, has been further evidenced by a project for closer political and economic relations between Italy and the states of the Balkans, which could scarcely come about without French approval. A first step toward such a rapprochement was seen in the visit of Premier Goemboes of Hungary to Rome on July 25, and Foreign Minister Titulesque of Rumania was also expected in Rome in August as a spokesman of the Little Entente. Offsetting this projected understanding, however, is the rift that has developed in the relations between Italy and Albania. Upon Italy’s demand for interest on her $10,000,000 loan to Albania of 1925, Albania in a wave of nationalism has closed all private schools (mostly controlled by Italians) and dispensed with the Italian General Pariani as military adviser.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Mediation in Cuba.—It was openly admitted in Washington at the close of July that Ambassador Welles’s efforts to mediate in Cuba’s political tangle were fully recognized and supported by the American government. Representatives of President Machado and of the opposing elements met with Ambassador Welles on July 28 for a second discussion of constitutional reforms and reported rapid progress. On July 26 the President issued a decree of amnesty for political offenders and restoration of constitutional guarantees, and he is reported to have agreed also to other reforms, including the restoration of the office of vice-president and revision of the election laws. But these promises are offset by his insistence on remaining in office until 1935.
Latin-American Trade Conferences.—During July the American State Department opened negotiations with Argentina, Colombia, and other South American countries for the development of better trade relations. Prior to conferences on the subject, a committee was also appointed to study the possibilities of tariff concessions and freer exchange of goods, all looking toward a recovery of the South American market where we have lost ground in recent years.
FAR EAST
Conditions in North China.—Marshal Feng Yu-hsiang, in control of some 60,000 semi-bandit forces in the remote province of Chahar west of Jehol, remained at the close of July an uncertain element in the confused situation in North China. The activities of his forces, such as the capture from its Japanese and Manchukuo garrison of the border town of Dolon Nor, might give the Japanese an excuse for invading and cleaning up the province. On the other hand the Nanking government is deterred from open hostilities with Feng lest it be accused of co-operation with Japan. Meanwhile Japan is apparently carrying out in good faith the restoration to China of the occupied territory north of Peiping and Tientsin, though Japanese guards will still be kept on the railways.
Japanese-Soviet Friction.—Having improved her position by non-aggression pacts with her western neighbors, the Soviet government during July adopted a somewhat stiffer tone in discussing with Japan the numerous points of friction that have developed between the two powers. These include not only the obstacles that have been placed in the way of Russia’s use of the Chinese Eastern Railway, but also clashes over fishing rights in eastern waters. In June three Japanese fishermen were killed by Kamchatkan coast guards while landing for water, and Japan at once dispatched a destroyer which sent a party ashore for investigation. More recently Japanese fishing boats have been seized, and Japan has taken possession of a Russian steamer and a fishing craft in the Kurile Islands.
In Manchuria the Japanese army of occupation has been reorganized on a permanent basis, and the railways have been divided into three areas all policed by Japanese troops. Telegraph, telephone, and radio services have been combined under one management, with a majority of the stock in the hands of Japan and the puppet state.