Great Falls tribune., 1922-03-16
THE ANGLO-JAPANESE
TREATY.

xnGAx Il
CENATOR LODGE has told the
~ senate that one great accomp-
lisruent Of the Warrington con-
ference was to secure the annul-
ment of the Anglo-Japanese treaty,
and that this would be lost unless
the four-power treaty was confirm
cd. He further stated that he re-
sarded the Anglo-Japanese treaty
as a menace to the United States.
The Anglo japanese treaty merely
pledges each country to come to
the aid of the other with all its
military and naval forces in case
any other nation makes an unpro-
voked attack on the Asiatic posses
sions Of the other. It was designed
in the first place, as a restraint to
Russia, England fearing aggression
in India from Russia and Japan
fearing the same power In Manchu-
ria or in Korea. Repeatedly and
emphatically both London and To-
kio has assured the United States
that this treaty was in no way
aimed at the United States and that
neither power had ever dreamed OF
the possibility Of unprovoked at
tack on their Asiatic territories
coming from the United States. To
say that such a treaty is menace
to the United States, as Senator
Lodge has done in the open senate,
comes pretty near to saying that
this republic thought the time
might come when we would make
an unprovoked attack by force on
either the British territory In Asia
or the Japanese territory in the
same hemisphere, which would
bring the Anglo-Japanese alliance
into active defense operations. This
country entertains no such plans
and never has entertained them.
Il is to be noted that the Anglo
Japanese treaty is purely a defen-
sive treaty. It would not operate
II either Great Britain or Japan
waged a war Of conquest In Asia,
or invaded the territory Of another
power, but only In the event OF
some other power making a war
of invasion on the Asiatic posses
sions of Great Britain or Japan
without provocation. To say that
such a treaty Is a menace to the
interests of the United States Is
not true, and almost justifies the
deduction that those making such
claims believe that some time in the
future the United States may want
to make an unprovoked assault on
India or Japan or the island posses
sions of these powers In the Pa
cific. ..........
The four-power pact pledges each
of the four powers not to do this,
and to consult as to what Is to be
done jointly or individually in case
any power outside the pact should
undertake to do this thing. Senator
Johnson very pertinently points
out that If we are unable to give
credence to the repeated assertions
of Great Britain and Japan that
they never considered the possibil-
ity Of using their Joint treaty
against the United States, then we
must have very little confidence in
their national honor or sincerity
of purpose. And if that be true,
what use is it to make the present
treaty with them. Treaties have
only value as they represent the
honest purpose Of the signers to
stand by their word. IF British
and Japanese assurances as to the
scope and purpose of the Anglo
Japanese treaty are not to be trust
ed then their assurances under the
four-power pact are also Of no
value and not to be trusted, de-
clares the California senator. and
his logic is good.
The new four-power pact merely
extends to four nations instead OF
two, the duty of defending Pacific
territory now held by its signers
against aggression, but it limits the
sphere Of its operation to smaller
area, the islands Of the Pacific. It
also substitutes a moral obligation
for a specific legal obligation, so
far as the use Of force to carry out
its objects is concerned. In the
two-power treaty, England and
Japan used no weasel words" but
agreed to :se their military and
naval force to protect each other
against unprovoked attack. In the
four-power treaty the members