Page:League of Nations-Appeal by the Chinese Government.pdf/38

 and the United States of America recognition of their country's "special position", "special influence and interest", or "paramount interest" in Manchuria. These efforts have only met with partial success, and, where recognition of such claims has been accorded, in more or less definite terms, the international agreements or understandings containing them have largely disappeared with the passage of time, either by formal abrogation or otherwise—as, for example: the Russo-Japanese secret Conventions of 1907, 1910, 1912 and 1916, made with the former Tsarist Government of Russia; the Anglo-Japanese Conventions of Alliance, Guarantee and Declaration of Policies; and the Lansing-Ishii Exchange of Notes of 1917. The signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty of the Washington Conference of February 6th, 1922, by agreeing "to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity" of China, to maintain "equality of opportunity in China for the trade and industry of all nations", by refraining from taking advantage of conditions in China "in order to seek special rights or privileges" there, and by providing "the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government", challenged to a large extent the claims of any signatory State to a "special position" or to "special rights and interests" in any part of China, including Manchuria.

But the provisions of the Nine-Power Treaty and the abandonment, by abrogation or otherwise, of such agreements as those mentioned above have led to no change in the attitude of the Japanese. doubtless well expressed the general view of his countrymen in his recent Memoirs (Gaiko Yoruku), when he said: ""Even if the Lansing-Ishii agreement is abolished, Japan's special interests unshakenly exist there. The special interests which Japan possesses in China neither were created by an international agreement, nor can they become the objects of abolition.""

This Japanese claim with respect to Manchuria conflicts with the sovereign rights of China and is irreconcilable with the aspirations of the National Government, which seeks to curtail existing exceptional rights and privileges of foreign States throughout China and to prevent their further extension in the future. The development of this conflict will be clearer from a consideration of the respective policies pursued by Japan and China in Manchuria.

Until the events of September 1931, the various Japanese Cabinets, since 1905, appeared to have the same general aims in Manchuria, but they differed as to the policies best suited to achieve these aims. They also differed somewhat as to the extent of the responsibility which Japan should assume for the maintenance of peace and order.

The general aims for which they worked in Manchuria were to maintain and develop Japan's vested interests, to foster the expansion of Japanese enterprise, and to obtain adequate protection for Japanese lives and property. In the policies adopted for realising these aims there was one cardinal feature which may be said to have been common to them all. This feature has been the tendency to regard Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia as distinct from the rest of China. It resulted naturally from the Japanese conception of their country's "special position" in Manchuria. Whatever differences may have been observable between the specific policies advocated by the various Cabinets in Japan—as, for example, between the so-called "friendship policy" of Baron Shidehara and the so-called "positive policy" of the late General Baron Tanaka—they have always had this feature in common.