As regards the matter of her national economic existence, and, as connected therewith, the obtaining of an adequate supply of foodstuffs and raw materials for her people, Japan, at the second meeting of the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions, made the following statement:

We adhere without condition or reservation to the principle of the Open Door or equal opportunity in China. We look to China in particular for the supply of raw materials essential to our industrial life, and for foodstuffs as well. In the purchase of such materials from China, as well as in all our trade relations with that country, we do not claim any special rights or privileges, and we welcome fair and honest competition with all nations.

This is a declaration satisfactory in every way, and it is to be hoped that it will be faithfully followed. It was, however, somewhat disturbing to China, and, no doubt, to the other Powers, later to find that, in justification of her refusal to abandon the leased Kwantung district, Japan should have pointed to the fact that that district was a part of Manchuria "where, by reason of its close propinquity to Japan's territory more than anything else, she has vital interests in that which relates to her economic life and national safety."

Furthermore, at the twentieth meeting of the Committee on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions the Japanese delegation submitted a formal statement in which it called attention to the richness of China's natural resources; expressed the hope that China would grant to foreigners, as far as possible, the opportunity of coöperation in the development and utilization of those resources; and said that it would be gratified to receive from China a spontaneous declaration as to her future policy in this regard.

It is to be hoped that, in these statements, there was not intended to be implied any right upon the part of Japan to claim that anything more than friendly persuasion can be applied to China in order that the Japanese people may obtain an assured and adequate supply of the foodstuffs and raw materials which they may deem to be necessary to their economic existence.

66

Replying to this request for a spontaneous" statement, it will be remembered that, on February 2, Mr. Sze, speaking in behalf of the Chinese delegation, said that China's natural re

sources were already accessible to all under the normal operation of the economic law of supply and demand. "Consistent with the vital interests of the Chinese nation and the security of its economic life," he said, "China will continue, on her own accord, to invite the coöperation of foreign capital and skill in the development of her natural resources.'

It is universally recognized that a country has the first claim upon the natural resources of its own soil, and may rightfully exploit or conserve them in accordance with the economic needs of its own people, whose needs rightfully take precedence of the needs of other peoples. As for Manchuria and Mongolia, the Chinese Government can, without difficulty, demonstrate that their forests, lands, and sub-surface treasures will be urgently needed by the Chinese themselves, and this too within the very near future. For some years now, Manchuria and Mongolia have furnished outlets for the surplus populations of other of China's provinces, and, with the rapidly increasing industrialization of China, it is certain that the coal and minerals of the Mongolian and Manchurian mines will be needed for home use or manufacturing. As Dr. Koo said, in answer to the Japanese statement which has been earlier quoted: "It is clear that China has such truly vital interests in Manchuria that the interests of any foreign Power therein, however important they may be in themselves, cannot compare with them. The fact of close propinquity of Manchuria to Korea, if it justifies any claim to consideration, can be equitably appealed to only on the condition of reciprocity"—that is, one that would give to the Chinese in Korea the same privileges as might be claimed by the Japanese in Manchuria.

The foregoing discussion furnishes an introduction to a thesis maintained by the late Premier Hara in the paper to which earlier reference has been made. This thesis, while not a new one, gains additional interest and importance when accepted and urged for world adoption by such a distinguished statesman. (Mr. Hara's paper entitled Reflections on Lasting Peace was published in The Tokyo Diplomatic Review of September 15, 1921; and republished in English translation in The Living Age of January 7, 1922.) He says that if one starts with the proposition

that no nation has a right to compel another nation to commit suicide

It follows that it is the great duty of every government today to open wide its economic doors, and to extend to all peoples free access to what is vital to existence, and thus to save the more unfortunate from unnatural misery and discrimination. The "open door" and the abolition of world barriers must be our policy, as it is the first principle of a lasting peace. We Japanese in particular are suffering from the increasing difficulty of living, attributable to our ever waxing population and our ever waning resources. Were any people to reach a point where their entire energy was inevitably devoted to earning a bare subsistence, and no energy was left them for attaining higher spiritual and cultural ideals, that people would indeed be facing a mighty dark future. We tremble to think that our people are often threatened with uncertainty as to even the necessaries of life. Their condition ought to be remedied and greater freedom be given the Japanese, if the world expects her to be the keystone to the arch of peace of the Far East, and a faithful supporter of the welfare of the world. Thus, even a single example shows beyond a doubt the absolute dependence of lasting peace upon the "open door". By "open door" I do not mean a complete throwing down of national boundary stones. What I have in mind is the removal of the economic insecurity of some peoples by extending to them the opportunity for free access to the world's resources, eliminating other artificial economic barriers, and adjusting as much as possible the inequality arising from the earlier discriminations of nature and of history.

Here we have frankly applied to nations that same principle with regard to the distribution of so-called "gifts of nature" which certain economists or sociologists have sought to have adopted as between individual human beings. Its international adoption would of course mean the abrogation of all tariff barriers, of all restraints upon immigration and emigration, and the repeal of all laws imposing limitations upon aliens with regard to land-holding, to ownership and operation of mines or ships, or to any other economic activities or enterprises.

This occasion does not offer an opportunity to discuss the abstract or inherent justice of this Communistic principle, whether as applied to nations or to individuals. It is sufficient for our purposes to say that the chance that it will be adopted by the nations of the world is so remote as to take it out of the realm of practical politics. If, then, this be admitted, in what position is Japan left? Premier Hara implies that, unless Japan is allowed

to share in the resources of other nations-and he evidently has China especially in mind-Japan cannot be counted upon to aid in the maintenance of peace. From his statements the conclusion seems to follow that if China should refuse to make her natural assets sufficiently available to Japan, that would be equivalent to a demand upon China's part that Japan should commit national suicide, or at least that she should acquiesce in a life for her people that would be one only of bare existence.

Should Japan attempt to claim in China or elsewhere rights of trade or of economic exploitation based upon her economic necessities, there are two countervailing arguments that China or any other Power concerned may adduce.

In the first place it may be said that the misfortunes or needs of one State give to it no ethical or moral right to violate the rights of another State, any more than they justify, in private law, the seizure by one individual of another individual's property. The doctrine that to desire or to need a thing is sufficient to authorize a State to take by force the objects desired or needed was of course Germany's doctrine when it declared that it had a right to gain for itself a place in the sun. It is scarcely to be conceived that, when this is seen to be its essential character, Japan will wish to advocate or practice the doctrine.

In the second place, it can of course be shown that this is not Japan's only alternative. As other industrialized countries have done, she can dispose in the open market of her manufactured products, and, in return, purchase, in free competition with the other peoples, the foodstuffs and raw materials which her subjects may need. This process will be limited only by the ability of the Japanese to develop an efficient economic and industrial machinery and an adequately trained body of workers. Surely, should she find herself unable to do this to an extent that will enable her to compete with the workmen of other countries, she cannot thereupon claim special rights of economic or political exploitation outside of her own borders.

In truth, if the processes which have operated in other parts of the world operate also in Japan as we may expect they will, it will be found that her population will accommodate itself in the matter of numbers to the standards of living that prevail in

Japan. That is to say, the standard of economic comfort being given, the population by a process of natural increase or decrease will be determined by the available supply of economic goods. Japan, therefore, need not necessarily look forward to a time pictured by Premier Hara, when her people will be obliged to devote themselves exclusively to maintaining a bare existence without opportunities for culture and the enjoyment of what are termed the luxuries of life. If her people become educated to a higher standard of life, the birth rate will decrease until these standards become maintainable. This may mean that Japan cannot look forward to as large a population as her political ambitions may seem to make desirable, but surely this will not be employed as an argument in defense of an aggressive foreign policy.

In result, then, if we squarely face the present political situation in the Far East, it is seen that it is still one that needs to be carefully watched. If China has within herself recuperative powers, so that, within a reasonable time, she will be able to establish an efficient national Government, and if Japan loyally abides by the undertakings into which she entered in the Washington conference, one may look forward to an increasingly satisfactory condition of affairs in the Far East. But if either or both of these desiderata are not realized, the abilities of the Western Powers will be taxed to maintain peace and mutual accord. Japan continues in possession of interests, and in the exercise of alleged rights, in Manchuria which, if she were without scruples, would enable her to dominate that vast and rich area. W. W. WILLOUGHBY.