| |
Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee
Secretary
: Telephone.:
W. P.
COATES
temple bar
5032
FROM THE PRESS
DEPT.
London, w.c.2
September 28,
1933.
no. 52 NEWS
BULLETIN
September I8, 1933, was the second anniversary of the
intervention of Japan in Manchuria and the seizure of Mukden by Japanese
troops. In a declaration on this subject, the new Japanese Foreign
Minister, M. Hirota, stated that the creation of Manchukuo should not
divide Japan from China but should, on the contrary, serve as a bridge
to unite them in a closer friendship.
The creation of Manchukuo has indeed served as a bridge,
it would be more correct to say as a stepping stone to unite more
Chinese territory to Japan. The Japanese have extended their influence
to Jehol and Japanese troops now occupy a large part of the adjoining
province of Chahar. The Japanese are also practically in possession of
the territory along the Luan River and Japan has a powerful grip on
Northern China by her occupation of the important passes through the
Chinese Great Wall and the town of Shanhaikwan.
During the last few weeks Japan has, it would appear,
taken up an even more threatening attitude towards China. The friendly
embrace is getting warmer and warmer.
Serious Uneasiness
But it is not alone China that Japan is threatening. The
relations between Japan and the U.S.S.R. is giving rise to serious
uneasiness.
During the whole period of Japanese intervention in
Manchuria, the Soviet Government, true to its policy of non-intervention
and of the maintenance of peace, adopted an attitude of strict
neutrality. It bore patiently all the inconvenience and loss entailed to
its property (the Chinese-Eastern Railway) as a result of the military
operations in Manchuria. The Japanese Government on its side, when it
seized Manchuria, gave assurances to the U.S.S.R. that the property and
interests of the latter in Manchuria would be respected.
Attacks on Chinese-Eastern Railway
These promises, the Soviet authorities maintain, have
never been carried out. Debts amounting to over 30,000,000 yen for the
carrying of Japanese troops on the Chinese-Eastern Railway have not been
paid, and in spite of reiterated Japanese promises no efficient
protection has been given against bandit attacks on the railway.
The Soviet authorities compute that there have been 3,000
cases of attack on trains of the Chinese-Eastern Railway, including
murder of employees, the tearing up of the permanent way, &c,, between
1930 and July, 1933, nearly half of these attacks being carried out by
the guards entrusted with the protection of the line and traffic. The
bandit attacks have increased progressively year by year. About 1,000
railwaymen have been carried off by bandits.
The Chinese-Eastern Railway has spent enormous sums on
organising the protection of its line and trains, but this has given
little result since, so the Soviet manager of the Chinese-Eastern
Railway says, the authorities in Manchukuo have encouraged attacks on
the railway, particularly its Eastern section. This has also been
reported by the Mukden correspondent of The Times (July 25, 1933)
:—
" Although all news of the frequent outrages on the
eastern section of the line, between Harbin and Pogranich-naya, is
suppressed, it is an open secret that the elaborate official measures
for the suppression of banditry are being enforced laxly, if at all, by
the Japanese military in that zone."
What is the object of these repeated attacks on the
rights and interests of the U.S.S.R. ? There would seem to be a double
purpose in them.
In the first place, the Japanese have their eyes on the
rich maritime provinces of the U.S.S.R. which it would gladly
seize—this, one might perhaps term the more long-distance object.
Secondly, the Japanese, through the Manchukuo
authorities, are endeavouring to make the Chinese-Eastern Railway
unworkable in order to induce the Soviet authorities to sell it for a
song, or to constitute an excuse for seizing the railway.
Negotiation for Sale of Chinese-Eastern Railway
It will be recalled that in order to remove the constant
source of conflict which the dual management of the Chinese-Eastern
Railway involved, the Soviet Government having no imperialist ambitions
in Manchuria, had more than once offered to sell the railway to China.
This year, the Soviet Government again offered to sell
the railway, and Japan acting officially as intermediary, negotiations
for the sale opened in Tokio, June 26, 1933.
We have dealt with these negotiations in bulletin No. 50
(August 3, 1933). Here we need only point out that not only did
Manchukuo (i.e., Japan) offer a ridiculously low sum—about one-fifth of
what the Soviets asked, but they tried to drag all sorts of extraneous
questions into the discussion.
To get a move on the Soviet authorities, early in August,
reduced their price for the railway from 250,000,000 gold roubles to
200,000,000 gold roubles (£20,000,000). Manchukuo, however, adhered to
its offer of 50,000,000 yen (£5,000,000 at par) contending that this
corresponds to 200,000,000 gold roubles if the exchange rate of the yen
is taken at twenty-five to one gold rouble.
The Soviet authorities naturally could not accept this
offer although they were willing to discuss the question of the rate of
exchange between the gold rouble and the yen. Later it was reported that
Manchukuo was willing to offer 70,000,000 yen, although it is not clear
whether this offer was actually made or not.
M. Sokolnikov's Note
Within the last few weeks the position has become
definitely more serious. According to the Soviet Press, the Japanese
through Manchukuo are preparing to seize the Chinese-Eastern Railway,
and on September 21, 1933, M. Sokolnikov, Assistant Commissar for
Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Soviet Government, handed the
following Note to M. Ota, the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow :—
" According to reliable information received by the
Soviet Government, the Manchukuo authorities, under the direction of the
Japanese Government, intend in the very near future to carry out a
number of changes in the administration of the Chinese-Eastern Railway
which would completely violate the existing regulations.
" In particular they intend high handedly to violate the
rights of the Soviet manager of the railway, making him, in effect, the
dependent of a Manchurian assistant.
" At the same time the Manchurian authorities, under the
direction of the agents of the Japanese Government, are planning a
series of police measures against the Soviet employees of the railway.
" The Soviet Government authorises me on its behalf to
give warning that the realisation of such, or similar, measures in
Harbin which violate the status of the Railway laid down in Agreements
will be considered by my Government as contradicting those obligations
which the Governments of Tokyo and Mukden undertook, and will be
qualified as an inadmissible attempt to seize the railway.
" The Soviet Government considers that direct
responsibility for these violations falls upon the Japanese Government,
not Manchukuo, which is powerless and incapable of being responsible for
events in Manchuria, The Japanese Government, which is the actual master
of Manchuria, must bear the direct responsibility for all violations of
treaties in connection with the Chinese-Eastern Railway, as well as the
intended seizure of the Railway."
A similar Note was handed by the Soviet Ambassador in
Tokyo to the Japanese Government.
Plan to Seize Railway
On September 24, 1933, the Izvestia pointed out
that according to reliable information the realisation of the plan for
the seizure of the Chinese-Eastern Railway was to commence with the
arrest of responsible Soviet employees of the railway and the
appointment of the Manchurian assistant manager as manager of the
Chinese-Eastern Railway, and that that would mean the violation of
existing agreements and treaties and the forcible seizure of the
Chinese-Eastern Railway by the Japanese-Manchurian authorities.
On September 26, 1933, we read in the British Press that
:—
" A group of important Soviet employees of the Chinese-Eastern Railway
have been arrested by the Japanese and Manchurian police at Harbin,
according to the Moscow Press to-day. The arrested men include the
director of the financial department, the director of operations, the
senior dispatcher, and the director of the main repair shops at Harbin."
This has been followed by a vigorous protest by the
Soviet Consul-General at Harbin to which the Japanese Foreign Ministry
is reported to have replied verbally that the action of the Manchukuo
authorities was not taken against the men as Soviet citizens but as
employees of the C.E.R., who must be held responsible for any illegal
action they may commit.
Japanese Aggression
The situation is all the more threatening in that recent
events in Japan tend to show that the influence of the Japanese Minister
for War, M. Araki, whose imperialist expansionist policy and anti-Soviet
sentiments are well known, seems to be stronger than ever.
It is significant that, in the course of an interview on
the appointment of M. Hirota as Foreign Minister, M. Araki is reported
to have emphasised the fact that M. Hirota was a very old friend of his
and that Japanese foreign policy was firmly fixed and would
undergo no sharp change by the
substitution of M. Uchida by M. Hirota. M. Hirota's general reactionary
leanings are well known. The Tokio correspondent of The Times
(September 15, 1933) says that :—
" In his youth he came under the influence of the founders of the
notorious Black Dragon Society. He is consequently a persona grata
with the ultra-patriotic elements."
M. Hirota and Proposed Non-Aggression Pact
On the other hand, M. Hirota had been reported
to be a firm supporter of the policy of concluding a
Non-Aggression Pact with the U.S.S.R. But in reply
to a question on the subject at an interview with the
foreign Press, September 16,
1933, M. Hirota said :—
" The U.S.S.R. borders not only on Japan but also on
Manchukuo. It is highly important that there should
be no complications in the relations of the three parties. I hope
there are no such complications. Of course, there are
various outstanding questions between the
TJ.S.S.R. and Japan.
However, if they are settled in a friendly way then there
will be no need for the conclusion of a Pact of
Non-Aggression with the
U.S-S.R."
This has an ominous sound. Were there no questions in
dispute at all and no likelihood of any arising there would naturally be
no need for a Pact of Non-Aggression, but it is precisely the existence
of such disputes which makes a Pant of Non-Aggression important. The
repeated refusal of Japan to conclude such a Pact in itself indicates
that Japan contemplates the possibility of aggressive action and is,
therefore, unwilling to enter into an agreement, the early violation of
which would, of course, be rather inconvenient.
It is to be hoped that the Japanese Government will think
long and earnestly before it launches an attack on the U.S.S.R. The
latter is not China, nor is it the Tsarist Russia of old. Its Red Army
is well equipped and above all the ranks of the Red Army know what they
stand for and what they may be called to fight for.
At the same time, in the present temper of Japan the
situation is extremely dangerous and there can be no doubt that should
Japanese imperialist aims give rise to a military conflict with the
U.S.S.R. this would have serious repercussions on the rest of the world.
ANGLO-SOVIET TRADE
We have received the following summary of an article on
Anglo-Soviet trade in the Ekonomicheskaya Zhizn (the organ of the
Commissariat for Finance). In view of the negotiations for an
Anglo-Soviet Commercial Agreement now proceeding in London, our readers
will no doubt be interested to see how the matter is regarded by a
Soviet business journal :—-
The article points out that in the first, half of 1929, the correlation
between Soviet exports to Britain and British exports to the U.S.S.R.
was 5 — 1, and on the same basis for the first half of 1932, the ratio
was 1 ?64 - 1. However, if the sums paid by the U.S.S.R. for chartering
British ships is taken into account, then the adverse balance of the
total Anglo-Soviet trade turnover of £12,400,000 would not amount to
more than £1,000,000.
In spite of this, proceeds the article, British circles
hostile to the U.S.S.R., especially in Canada, have carried on a
systematic campaign against Anglo-Soviet commercial relations, trying to
undermine the sound juridical basis on which they rested. Anti-Soviet
circles in Canada procured the consent of members of the British Cabinet
for the breaking up of the Trade Agreement, which was actually done.
The article comments on the progress of negotiations for
the conclusion of a new treaty, on the embargo and on the resumption of
negotiations after the suspension of the embargo.
Both parties, says the article, manifested a tendency to understand
mutual interests and it seemed that they would come to terms, but once
more a campaign developed against mutual Anglo-Soviet relations. The
Canadian Premier was intensively active for at least a partial
resumption of the embargo. The absurd campaign against " timber dumping
" was resumed.
The British Government evidently decided to give in to
the Canadian demands and authorised the carrying out of an investigation
concerning the importation of Soviet timber, applying for the first
time, in response to Canadian insistence, the procedure provided in
Clause 21 of the Ottawa Agreement.
The U.S.S.R cannot, says the article, enlarge or expand
mutual relations with countries which do not create minimum guarantees
for Soviet exports. The U.S.S.R. cannot agree that its exports to any
country are to be subjected to systematic threats, prohibitions and
limitations. If any country desires to adopt this method, it must reckon
the consequences that will arise for its economic mutual relations with
the U.S.S.R.
|
|