New-York tribune., 1921-12-12

wholly for peace and In no sense for
war
One other difference between the two
compacts deserves to be noticed and is
of capital Importance. In the Anglo
Japanese alliance there is no provision
against aggression by Great Britain or
Japan, no pledge or an effort to avoid
war or to refrain from actions that
might be prov ocatiyc of war. In the
new agreement four powers--the only
powers, perhaps, between whom con-
| 1icts OF interest are likely to arise in
the Paciiic--are solemnly pledged to
respect one another's rights. and if any
controversy over them should arise TO
communicate with one another fully
and frankly in joint conference.
1t cannot be contested that this new
compact, assuming a will to peace and
disposition to avoid aggression upon
other powers, is more advantageous to
the signatories Of the Anglo-Japanese
alliance than that compact could ever
possibly be in the circumstances that
actually exist. AS has been persis-
tently maintained in these columns,
whatever its value to both nations NAV
have been when Russia and Germany
were contestants in the Far East for
spheres of interest in China, and may
have had designs upon India, the Anglo
Japanese alliance had ceased to be of
real Importance either to Great, Brita IN
or Japan unless it had some relation to
the United States, and the only rela-
ton 1t could have was one to excite
suspicion and create hostility. With
cut regretting in the least the per-
sistence with which it was opposed,
we may now all unite in placing flowers
upon its tomb.
Not a New Article X
Because the four principles relating
to Chins and the open door, formulated
by Mr.. Root, were presented to the con-
ference and unanimously adopted by
the nine powers at the same plenary
session as the four-power treaty, 1t has
been assumed by some writers that
these principles const tute part Of the
treaty, or are at least so connected
with it as to afford ground for compar-
ing the obligations undertaken with
those of the covenant of the League of
Nations. 1t is of great Importance to
clear thinking on this subject that the
error Of this inference should be
promptly pointed out,
The first Of the four principles in
question reads: cit is the firm inten-
tion Of the powers attending this con-
ference to respect the sovereignty, the
independence and the territorial and
administrative integrity Of China
What is this, it is asked, but Article
\ of the League Of Nationa in another
form? VIII the American people ap-
prove and the Senate of the United
States ratify treaty which is, in ef-
feet. an alliance to preserve the polti-
cal independence and territorial integ-
! tv of China after all the nh;oc+;on,
raised to Article X of the covenant?
Let there be no confusion Of mind
on this subject. The agreement "tc
respect the political independence and
territorial integrity of a nation is one
thing. The promise ITO preserve" them
is another, and the difference is two.
fold. On the one hand, "to respect
! implies abstention from aggression
while "to preserve" pledges positive
action. On the other, the one is uni.
lateral, requiring nothing in return;
while the other is contractual. ar
agreement with others for a mutual
benefit to be supported by common ac.
tion. Had Article X of the covenant
read respect" instead of "preserve,'
| as President Wilson's law advisers
counse!ed, there would have been nc
debate over Article X.
But that which effectively silences
this whole line of reasoning that woulc
assimilate the new treaty to the cove
nant OF the league is that the four.
powers treaty is not based on coercion
as the covenant is, and has no relation
to the four principles or their enforce.
ment. These constitute no part of the
treaty, and they cannot thus violentl,
DE forced into it by construction. The
treaty nowhere binds any one of the