New-York tribune., 1921-03-27

b. Pitkn, Associate Professor Philoso
phy. Columbia University. Published
by the Century Company.
n N THIS volume Professor Pitkin
tries to answer the most vexa-
tious query wig, which Amer
ican foreign policy has to wrcs-
tie. Must we fight japan? The author
acquits American statesmen and the
American public Of any very serious
understanding Of the problem. He Of |
fers some confident and, as he admits,
rather "dogmatic" conclusions Of his |
own.
Friction in California over Japanese
land ownership and Japanese competi-
ton with the American farmer in the
great interior agricultural valley Of
that state has kept one phase of the
issue sepsationally to the front. But
as A. M. Pooley, neutral observer,
shrewdly remarked in his book, Japan's |
Foreign Policies, published last year,
disputes in regard to immigration and |
land ownership are wholly superficial
manifestations of far deeper antago-
nism. 1t is we'll for Americans who
have their minds only OH the Cali
'ornia Situation to consider Pooley's
iudgments-those Of an Englishman
who knows modern Japan thoroughly.
These are: "The question whether or
not the Japanese are assimilable Tin
America] is beside the point. Whether
or not the Japanese are a Mongolian
race and SO unable to be naturalized
in America is side issue. The real
problem is whether or not the Japa-
nese are to become the masters of the
Pacific and the dominators of Oriental
politics"
japan has hardly leg to stand on in
protesting against Americas desire to
keep out Japanese laborers or against
California's legislation to restrict Jap
anese land ownership. She herself re-
stricts alien immigration and doesn't
allow foreigners to own land. The only
material point in her complaints against
American policy is that we make dis
ordinations against her which we
waive in the case of other nations. This
is the weakness of the California land
ownership laws. 1t is also the weak
ness, logically, of our attempt to hold
the door open to aliens from all other
quarters of the globe, while shutting it
on China and Japan. But these defects
could be easily remedied. Professor
Fitkin, who is rigid exclusionist,
would placate Japan by shutting out
eli foreign laborers and, perhaps, have
California pass a law forbidding any
alien land ownership, as other states
have done in the past and have per-
feet right to do. An arrangement
ought to be easy enough to make be-
tween two nations whose practices on
these points are so close together.
Moreover, even if the United States
should fail to put Japan on an exactly
equal basis with other nations with
respect to immigration and land owner
ship, that would be no mortal offense.
1t is inconceivable that the Japanese
would seek war on that score, if there
weren't-as there are-other fundamen-
war.
Professor Pitkin recognizes these
causes. He draws a detailed parallel
between Japan and Germany and finds
the same impulses working powerfully
on the island empire as melted Ger
many to seek a larger place in the sun.
Japan is overpopulated and ambitious
Her rulers are seeking outlets for her
surplus labor and products. She nat
urally aspires to hegemony in the Far
East, and has marked Siberia, Man
churia and perhaps the Philippines for
annexation, or for political and eco
nomic exploitation as dependencies.
She hopes also to dominate China. She
is even reaching out through coloniza-
ton for Hawaii. In all these projects
she finds the United States blocking
her path. Here is war in the making,
due to an inevitable clashing of ma
tional interests.
Popular skepticism here justifes it.
self by asking the question: "Why
should Japan, a much poorer country,
with smaller population and weaker
navy, risk war with the United States 2"
But the trouble is that Japan's navy is
dangerously strong for the purposes of
the only sort of war now possible be-
tween the two countries. Japan can
not come across the Pacific and invade
California. Neither can we take an
army across the ocean to invade Japan.
Yet the seat of war-a naval war
would be in the Far East, where we
should have to defend the Philippines
and Guam and our interests in China
Fighting near home, with innumerable
| advantages, Japan's navy would be
equal or superior to ours.
A war in the near future would be
a long distance and ineffective one on
our part. 1t would be a war on sea
communications and commerce, with
Japan in a far more favorable posi-
tion strategically. She has more to
gain than we have in entering such a
struggle, and therein lies the real
threat of war. Only if we could
arouse China against her or form an
alliance with the anti-Japanese British
dominions would she run much risk Of
| fpiShirn Cnr,ropxr 1;l