By
Gareth Jones
San Francisco, January, 1935
Scares
of war between Japan and the United States find fertile soil in
California, where racial prejudice is powerful, but the menace of naval
conflict between the two powers appears to be almost entirely an
artificial growth encouraged by certain American interests. For a
state where unemployment is high it pays to paint a lurid picture of the
need for defense in the Pacific, for as a result the fleet is concentrated
in Californian waters, the traders benefit by the pay-roll of the officers
and the men and the ship-building yards and the aircraft factories are
provided with profitable orders.
Any
event, which shows the necessity of strengthening the naval and aviation
weapons along the Pacific, is therefore exaggerated or adapted for
purposes of propaganda. Amelia Earhart’s flight from Honolulu to
San Francisco in 16 hours is used as a bogey to demonstrate how small the
ocean is becoming and how swarms of aeroplanes could suddenly swoop down
on the cities on the coast. When in April a regular air service
opened between Canton, China and Manila, Guam, Wake Island Midway Island,
Honolulu and the American mainland, the speed of the crossing will be
another argument of the jingoists to further plans of naval and air
construction.
In
reality there is no direct cause of war between America and Japan and
reasonable observers on the Pacific coast realise that two nations whose
trade is so complementary would avoid war at all costs. Japan needs
American steel, cotton and oil; America wants silk from Japan and since
the war practically 40% of Japan’s foreign trade has been with the
United Stated. While there is competition in foreign markets, Japan
has little chance of damaging American one of her vital exports, namely
automobiles, nor her export of foodstuffs such as wheat.
America’s
investments in the Far East provide as little cause for direct conflict as
do her trade interests. Realists in San Francisco and Los Angeles
know that her investments in her China a are meager, that out of a total
of about £15,000,000,000 of United States funds invested abroad only
$196,000,000(excluding philanthropic investments) are invested in China
(1930 figure), that naval expenses, the cost of consuls, diplomats and
marines, of chamber of commerce and of shipping subsidies probably far
exceed the total profit annually made in business and finance, and that to
risk war for a minute proportion of America’s trade investments and
trade in Japan are far more valuable than her connections in China.
“You do not fight with your best customer”, remarked a Los Angeles
editor when discussing this problem.
Another
reason why realists consider there will be peace in the Pacific between
Japan and America is the tactical difficulty of waging war across a
distance of over 5,000 miles. That the Japanese fleet would come to
California, many thousand of miles from its nearest bases and plunge into
the very jaws of American defense is a fantastic idea. To think of
sending a n American fleet ti fight its way into the Sea of Japan or to
blockade an enemy, which, having a continental area in Korea and
Manchukuo, cannot be blockaded, is equally futile.
Even
if war were tactically feasible, political reasons for armed conflict are
now absent. American isolationism still feeds on the evil results of
interfering in the last war and there is at present, a definite move away
from Imperialism, which is characterised by voting of independence to the
Philippines, by the withdrawal of the last American marine from Haiti
after 19 years of occupation and by Secretary of State Hull’s
declaration on the Latin America that no government need fear intervention
on the part of the United States under the Roosevelt administration.
The period of aggrandisement in the Pacific is over and there is much
advocacy of withdrawal from possession of territory. A report of the
Harris Foundation of the University of Chicago finds, for example, that
possession of the Philippines, Samoa and Guam weakens the United States
and that those islands are hostage to potential enemies.
Japan’s
absence of allies is also noted by publicists in California as a barrier
against war and this factor is characterised by the remark of a Japanese
travelling in America: “We are afraid, for we are isolated. It
would be difficult to have China on our side and the United States and
Britain seem to be coming to an agreement. In a war all would be
against us.”
An
equally important Japanese factor in calming moderate opinion is the
budgetary difficulties, which Japan is suffering. The protests made
by the Minister of Finance, Takahashi, against the military expenditures
in Manchukuo are interpreted as indicating that the opponents of Japanese
militarism are daring to raise their head and in support of this the
speech of Takao Saito, leader of the Minseito Party, is quoted, in which
he said: “The life of the people is insecure due to the menace of war
and to the menace to freedom. Because the Government permits the
army and the navy to absorb too great a portion of our national funds we
are forced to sacrifice measures which would promote the welfare of
farmers and rural communities.”
While
direct causes of war between Japan and the United States are absent, there
is, however, one indirect cause, which has before brought America into
war, namely insistence of neutral rights. If there is a war between
Japan and Russia, American vessels will be engaged in carrying goods to
Russia or to China with the final destination of Russia, and among the
wares, traders are certain to dispatch contraband goods. The day
might thus come when a Japanese cruiser would stop an American vessel.
Unscrupulous newspapers would then arouse American public opinion and
portray the same of the American citizens being ill-treated by members of
what they consider an inferior race, and the problem of the freedom of the
seas, which brought the United States into the war of 1812 against England
and the Great War, might involve her in armed conflict with Japan.
Unless
President Roosevelt modifies the traditional American policy of protecting
her traders against blockade, there is a slight danger of a
Japanese-American War, Japan and the Soviet Union are ever engaged in
fighting. For this reason the indication that the President aims at
amending neutrality rights in order to keep the United States out of
embroilment is regarded as a bright omen for peace on he Pacific. If
there is war in that area, it will be safer for the United States that
each trader sends goods to the belligerent nation at his own risk.
Revision of neutrality rights along these lines, leading to the
abandonment of the Freedom of the Seas, which has been a stumbling- block
in Anglo-American relations would lead to better feeling between the
United States and Britain and by increasing against Japanese aggression.
Although
a war between Japan and the United States – except a war arising out of
the violation of neutral rights appears - almost impossible, there remains
a number of problems, which can lead to strained relations between the two
countries. Racial hatred mounts in the West from time to time and
recently this has been typified by the fight over land ownership between
the whites and the Japanese in Arizona. Last year a number of
Japanese migrated from the Imperial Valley in Southern California to the
irrigated district of central Arizona where with their industry, thrift
and low standard of living they provided severe competition with local
farmers. The result has been several bombings of Japanese farm
property and arson of Japanese dwellings.
Such
events intensify the bitterness of feeling over immigration problems.
Although an intelligent section of the Californian population advocates
that Japanese be allowed to enter on a quota, instead of being entirely
excluded as at present, a more vociferous section fights vigorously any
attempt to modify the Exclusion Act. It is not likely that the wound
dealt to the Japanese susceptibility by not allowing any Japanese
immigrants will be healed and the supersensitiveness of the Japanese on
this point will continue to mar friendship between Nippon and the United
Stated.
Other
grievances – although not deep enough to cause war – are likely to
separate Japan and America, among which are Japan’s blows at America’s
traditional policies in the Far East, namely the Open Door and the
Integrity of China. The settling up of the oil monopoly in
Manchukuo, which may be followed by the establishment of a Manchukuo
tobacco monopoly, shows that the Open Door, to quote the Christian Science
Monitor, “is being taken off its hinges and the opening steadily boarded
up, nailed and sealed.” Statements that American trade with
Manchukuo has increased since Japanese occupation are misleading because,
while it is true that American experts to Manchuria are greater in 1933
than in 1932, America’s share has since 1929 been reduced from 9% of the
total import trade of Manchuria to 5% in 1933, while the Japanese share of
imports has risen to 66% in 1933 as compared with 44% in 1929.
American
fear of trade competition, especially in Latin America, may lead also to
worsening of relations. Californian traders are alarmed by the
Japanese imitation of American goods, and their low prices are as staple
an item of conversation in San Francisco and in Los Angles clubs as they
are in the Orient.
Politically,
the Californians fear the extension of Japan’s policy of “Asia for the
Asiatics”, although few would be found willing to lay down the bones of
an American soldier to stop Japan. “If the Japanese see that the
Americans threat s are never backed by force, they will venture more and
more” is a prophesy often made on the Pacific coast and the belief that
Japan will seize the Philippines as soon as those islands are abandoned by
America is almost universally held.
Curiously
however, Japan's denunciation of the Washington Treaty has failed to arouse
great excitement in California and is met by confident declaration that
the United States could outbuild Japan and that, moreover the building of
a large American Navy would be good for California. However
illogical it may appear the Western American combines a growing Big Navy
consciousness with a desire for withdrawal from commitments in the Far
East.
The
grievances and fears of the Japanese are as deep as the American.
They still resent bitterly the Exclusion act, the continuation of the
Stimson policy of non-recognition of Manchukuo and the concentration of
the American fleet in the Pacific. Nor have they forgotten that at
the end of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, President Theodore Roosevelt
conducted a conference at which Japan did not gain all she desired and
that at the Conference of Versailles, president Wilson helped to make
Japan yield Shantung.
These
differences between Japan and America are creating a strong pro-British
sentiment on the Pacific coast and there is general support for an entente
between Washington and London. The passage of General Smuts’
speech in November advocating Anglo-American understanding, when quoted by
a British lecturer, was enthusiastically cheered in several towns.
The need for closer relations between the two countries is stressed in
conversations and articles with greater emphasis than formerly. That
this sentiment will lead to any alliance is highly improbable, for hatred
of “entangling alliances “ is still powerful and there is a suspicion
that Britain is using the United States “ to pull her chestnuts out of
the fire for her in China”. Nevertheless, in the event of no
agreement being reached between the three powers in the Pacific, there
will be almost universal approval of Anglo-American unity in defense of
common interests in the Far East.
|
GARETH JONES
(1905 -35) |