New-York tribune., 1921-12-22

/
that il he were seeking treaty Of
military alliance.
treaty promise in case Of threatened
aggressive action: 1t says: "The high
contracting parties shall communicate
with one another fully and frankly"
For what purpose? "In order to arrive
at an understanding" What is the
subject about which an understanding
! is to be sought? Is it military action ?
Senator Lodge, speaking for the nego-
tiators, declared that force has no
which an understanding is to be sought
is, therefore, not a decision between
war and peace, but how peace may best
be preserved.
The form Of expression used in the
treaty, it is true, is not precise; but
| how can it be, since the understanding
to be reached is left for the future? 1t
is the distinctive quality of this treaty.
which is based in continuous under
standing, that it leaves every signatory
at all times rec.
There is to be, il possible, an under
standing "as to the most efficient
measures tc be taken. Jointly or sep
arately to meet the cxigencies Of the
particular situation" This does not
bind all the participants to the same
action, or to any action. For some 1t
might mean merely mediation. For
others it might mean inevitable war;
but there is in the treaty no obligation
to participate in war. If any moral
obligation to do so should arise it
would not proceed from the terms OF
this treaty, which makes no pledge Of
military action, but from the mora!
aspects Of the PARTICULAR situation,
which would be as imperative if no
| treaty existed. What the treaty binds
rights Of all the others, and together
| to cooperative to secure respect by
every peaceful means.
Not q Substitute for Old Pact
IT has been said that the four
power treaty is Substitute" for the
Ang apanese alliance, which it ex-
prcssly terminates, and that its Ian
guage is in part borrowed from that
| document.
Not having the same purpose it can
hardly be called substitute, but even
locking upon it in that light the diff
ference between it and that covenant
is striking. The Angl o-Japanese ALI
ance was It. treaty looking toward war,
in clear ccntemp alton of war and dis
tinctly pledging the signatories to make
treaty, on the contrary, nowhere speaks
Of war, does not contemplate it and
makes no provision for it. 1t provides
for peace on the basis OF mutual re-
spect for rights voluntarily recognized
by the S gnatories. Should there be
threatenel act OF aggression on The
part of another power there is pro-
vision for q conference between them
with vie~ to an understanding as to
how peace may be maintained.
The fact that the league of the four
power treaty reveals previous ex-
animation of the Anglo-Japane alli-
ance. and even the retention of some
Of it's expressions, conspicuously ex
poses the wide difference between the
two documents by showing what has
been rejected and what has been pre-
served All that made that alliance
offensive to the United States as q
wax conpact has heen abandoned and
only the terms relating to conference
have been retained. The only ''under-
! standing" apart from the mere agree
ment to seek one in Article II, regard
! ing the action of the signatores in
case of threatened aggression by other
powers is to be arrived at freely when
the occasion arises. Beyond the effort
to reach such agreement i'll the par
ticular situation there is, strictly
speaking, no engagement whatever.
If this account of the nature Of this
| treaty is correct there is not the
slightest ground for the assertion that
it contains an obligation in any circum-
stances whatever to send troops and
ships for the protection of Japan or
any other insular territory against an
assault by some other power.
All Rights To Be Respected
In the light of what has been said
in the foregoing paragraphs regarding
the obligations of the powers under the
treaty. the question whether Japan is
q "possessor" or possession" appears
merely academic. Japan has the prom
lse of the three other naval powers to
respect her rights in the Pacific. as
they have her promise to respect theirs,
and it would be unworthy of the other
slgnatories Of this treaty TO enter into
/ g discussion TO show that owing to a
distinction between Japans home land
and her colonies they do not promise
to respect all her rights. Her rights,
unless this treaty is a pretense, will
be respected by her co-signers every
where, and she viii respect theirs, but
troops and ships have not been prom
Ised BY any one to be sent anywhere.
1t is, perhaps, more to the interest
Of Japan than to that of any other
power that this treaty for peace in the
Pacific Ocean should have been negc-
tiated. AS an insular power. it does
IN fae' render her almost immune from
attack, unless mistaken policy in the
far Last on her part should awaken