Great Falls tribune., 1921-12-22
THE DEMANDS OF CHINA


THE Chinese delegates to the
! Washington conference do not
seem to lack for nerve. They want
a lot of things and are by no means
modest in stating their wants.
These include money in the way OF
loans. But they also want all the
territory they ever had given back
to them and all the leases they have
given to other countries cancelled.
Finally, they want treaties made
with Japan abrogated, and they say
that without such cancellation OF
Chinese-Japanese treaties all other
concessions made them are mere
scraps of paper" Their demand
for the abrogation of treaties is
based on the allegation that they
made them under duress and tor
fear that something worse would
befall them. There is no doubt
considerable truth in that state
ment. China has been helpless,
both in a military and financial
way for long time, and other ma
tions have taken advantage Of that
fact. There is nothing new about
it. Germany signed treaty under
duress at Versailles that she would
never have signed otherwise. France
signed a like treaty at the same
place in 1870 that she would never
have signed had it not been for fear
Of worse things at the hands OF
Prussia. France, England and
Japan are ali willing to give back
to China territory she ceded to
them after the Boxer rebellion, but
each of these nations proposes to
to keep territory they acquired from
China prior to that time. Japan is
willing to give up Shantung provid-
ed she is paid for improvements
she has made there, but she is not
willing to give up Port Arthur,
which she now holds on 99-year
lease from China. France is not
willing to give up Cochin China,
nor is England willing to give up
Hong Kong, though all these pos
sessions were obtained from China
under duress. Indeed we do not
hear that China is asking for their
return. Her demands seem to be
directed against Japan alone, and
the Japanese claims seem to US to
have quite as much equity back OF
them as the British and French
claims, to keep acquired Chinese
territory. The far east question
seems to be yet good ways from
solution, in spite of the signing OF
the four power treaty.
Indeed, that treaty is itself under
the harrow just now. The Amerl-
can delegates put one meaning on
its phases, and President Harding
puts another meaning on it. II
concerns article 2, and its applica-
ton to the island of Japan. The
treaty says that if any outside
power makes war on the territory
of any of the four powers invading
their Pacific island possessions
they will all consult together as to
means to make such disturber OF
the peace in the Pacific quit. Now
the island Of Japan is Pacific
island, and possession Of one OF
the four powers. Does the treaty
cover the island of Japan3 The
American delegates seem to think
SO. The president thinks not. The
Japanese, Of course, want it to ap-
ply. They say they abandoned a
treaty with Great Britain which
guaranteed them British help
against any invading nation for the
four power agreement, which gives
them even stronger assurance OF
protection against invasion, ane
they make a pretty logical argu.
ment in support of their under.
standing Of the treaty. If this in.
terpretation prevails, then we are
morally bound to defend Japar
aginst all aggression from Russis
or any other nation. That will
throw Mr.. Hearst into a fit, ane
all Japanese haters will follow hi:
example. The Pacific coast will b'
opposed to the ratification of any
such treaty, and indeed it may bs
that it will fail Of ratification al
together. If third Of the sena
tors vote against it the treaty viii
fail. A guarantee Of the integrity
Of the Pacific ocean island territory
now held by Japan, including th'
island of Japan, will not appeal t
many senator's who defeated tn,
League of Nations covenant fol-