Sanctions & War

Knowing what was about to be said in the House of Commons last week Premier James Ramsay MacDonald climbed into an airplane to hide his idealistic head in the Scottish calm of Lossiemouth. When he had safely gone two of Britain's most important statesmen rose, the first to abandon China to her fate, the second to admit that Britain is preparing for war.

Ever since Japan's famed declaration of her Far Eastern policy the world's eyes have turned to Britain. Would she stand by the Nine Power Treaty? Would she call a halt to Japanese imperialism? Calmly in the cool greenish light of the House Sir John Simon announced last week that she would not.

"Great Britain," said her Foreign Secretary, "has never signed any treaty to preserve the territorial integrity of China." Before M. P.'s recovered from their surprise he continued:

"Economic sanctions [against treaty violators] cannot be applied without the risk of war, and we cannot undertake any system of sanctions or effective action of this type unless the United States cooperates. . . . It should be recognized that a policy of sanctions cannot be set up like a bottle of medicine for dosage when and where it is needed. This is a matter necessitating the full review of each individual case, and before action of this nature is taken by any power, all interested must formally agree."

With an expression of deep pain Chinese Minister Quo Tai-Chi sat in the diplomats' gallery while Stanley Baldwin continued the Government's case: "One of the conclusions to which I have been driven is that there is no such thing as a sanction which will work which does not mean war. In other words if we adopt sanctions we must be ready for war, and if we adopt them without being ready for war we are not honest trustees of the nation. ... If this country is giving Europe a collective guarantee or collective sanctions, it means we must make this country a great deal stronger than it is today. . . .

"No democratic country . . . can possibly wage war successfully unless the people are behind it. The people will not be . . . unless they are convinced from their viewpoint that it is a just war. Therefore, the people should be constantly told what the dangers are in the world, how they can best be met and when the time might come when . . . this country must defend itself.

"The scheme of coastal defenses in this country is quite complete by sea and air, and is reviewed every year. ... If the air estimates were brought in this day, or if a statement were made this day with regard to any increase in the air force, it might well be months before a pound could be spent. . . . These very points are at this moment under consideration . . . so if our fears are realized not a single day will have been lost."

China was not interested in the spectacle of Stanley Baldwin girding himself for battle, but she screamed with rage at Sir John Simon's denial. In London Minister Quo Tai-Chi would not let himself be quoted, but someone known as "an official in high Chinese quarters" announced:

"China now is in the direst danger. The militarists of Tokyo will take advantage of the opportunity to advance farther into North China."

In Washington Chinese Minister Dr. Alfred Sao-Ke Sze snapped that Sir John was quibbling, cited the League of Nations covenant to preserve the "territorial integrity and existing political independence" of all League members including China.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.