FROM 3 MARCH TO 3 APRIL
CHINA
Capture of Shanghai.—Southern Chinese forces entered the city of Shanghai on March 20-21 without great opposition, many of the troops and leaders of the defense going over to the Southern Army. A reign of terror followed in the native city, but both the attacking and the retreating forces were kept out of the district occupied by foreign troops. There were several clashes at the barriers of the foreign district, in one of which two British Punjabi soldiers were killed and several were wounded. Owing to fears regarding the adequacy of measures taken by French forces to defend the French concession, barricades were erected between the international concession and the French settlement, and at the close of March, American marines guarded this line, prepared, if necessary, to reinforce the French front.
Outrages at Nanking.-—On the morning of March 24, the Northern forces were driven out of Nanking, the ancient capital of China up the river from Shanghai, and the city was occupied by Nationalist troops. In the disorder and looting which followed, at least six foreigners were killed and several were wounded. Those killed included Dr. J. E. Williams, American, vice-president of the University of Nanking, two French Jesuit priests, the British harbormaster, a British sailor, another British subject, and one or more Japanese. Several women were attacked, stripped of clothing, and wounded. A small company of Americans at the American consulate, consisting of Consul John K. Davis, his wife and two children, a guard of eleven sailors under Ensign Phelps, and nine civilians, were driven from the consulate under constant fire to the establishment of the Standard Oil Company on a hill near the city wall. Here their number was raised to a total of thirty- one. From this point signal service was maintained by American seamen with the U.S. destroyers Noa and Preston, and the British cruiser Emerald lying off the city. After two hours, during which the party was subjected to constant attacks by the Chinese, Consul Davis requested that fire be opened by the vessels in the river. At about 3 130 p.m. all three vessels fired shells into the district around the Socony Hill, firing in all about sixty shells in a period of one half hour. Landing .parties were sent ashore, and at the same time the party on the hill escaped over the city wall and reached the ships about two hours later. The American senior officer, Rear Admiral Hough, who arrived after the firing, acting with the British commander of the Emerald, sent an ultimatum demanding the safe conduct of all foreigners to the river bank by 10:00 a.m. on March 26. Most of the foreigners were brought to the shore under escort of Southern troops on the evening of March 25.
The shells from the naval vessels at once stopped the firing of the Chinese at Socony Hill, and undoubtedly checked the attacks on foreigners in other parts of the city. Contrary to early extravagant reports of losses inflicted by the fire of the vessels, an investigation ordered by General Chang Kaishek, who reached Nanking on March 26, showed that only six Chinese were killed.
Measures of Foreign Powers.—Following the attacks on foreigners at Nanking, the American, British and Japanese ministers at Peking conferred and agreed to definite recommendations to their Governments regarding reparations. At the close of March, however, it was uncertain whether the United States Government would act separately or in concert with other powers. Evidence of foreigners in Nanking showed clearly that the looting and attacks on foreigners were prearranged, carried on largely by Southern soldier's, and were called off by bugles after the firing from the naval vessels.
After the Nanking attack, measures were taken for the more rapid evacuation of foreigners from the Yangtze Valley and all regions controlled or threatened by the Cantonese. The U.S. cruisers Richmond, Marblehead, and Cincinnati sailed from Honolulu for China on the evening of March 24, and the Sixth Regiment of Marines was ordered to sail from San Diego on April 4.
Dissension Among Southern Leaders. —Reports from the Southern capital at Hankow indicated increased dissension between the conservative and radical factions of the Koumintang or Nationalist Party, General Chang Kai-shek, as leader of the conservatives, opposing the communistic leanings of the radicals and advocating the elimination of the Soviet envoy, Borodin, from the councils of the party. On March 15, it was reported that the radicals had gained the ascendancy and deprived Chang of his political offices. Chang, however, retained control of the army and at the close of March was in charge of the Southern forces at Shanghai.
Capture of Soviet Envoys.—The activities of Soviet agents in China were brought out by the seizure at Nanking on February 28, of the Soviet steamer Paniat Lenina en route to Hankow, and the arrest of Mme. Borodin, wife of the Russian envoy to the Cantonese Government, with three Russian couriers. It was alleged that the vessel carried tons of red propaganda. Several sharp notes were sent by the Soviet Government to Peking demanding assurances for the safety of the captives and their immediate release. It was reported on March 17 that the Russian emissaries had been ordered to Peking for court martial on charges of espionage.
Correction.—In the January issue of the Proceedings, p. 118, a statement was made in these “Notes” that “British, French, and also United States marines, were landed [at Hankow in November], for the protection of foreign interests.” This statement was in error, as no marines were landed.
LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS
Three Power Naval Conference.— After the refusal of Italy and France to take part in the naval limitation conference proposed by President Coolidge, the suggestion was made from Washington that the United States, Great Britain, and Japan should still proceed with the conference. This proposal was approved by Great Britain and Japan. Second invitations were then sent to France and Italy, expressing the hope that their representatives might attend; but it did not appear likely that either of the Continental nations would depart from their announced policy of avoiding a conference disassociated from the League and limited to the chief naval powers.
United States Rejects Arms Proposals.—On March 17, the League of Nations secretariat published the observations of the United States Government on the recommendations of a commission of experts which met in Paris in February for the consideration of technical problems connected with limitation of armament. The American document was chiefly negative. It opposed (1) the outlawing of gas warfare, (2) agreements for limitation of poison gas production, (3) the use of government budgets as a criterion for comparing armaments, (4) the consideration of such elements as population, railways, communications, etc., in scaling down armaments. It also disputed the conclusion of the commission that “regional agreements” were useless when the regions in question were not economically self-contained.
It was reported that a British memorandum supporting the American stand on these points was in preparation.
Work of Preparatory Commission.— The Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference renewed its sessions at Genoa in March, and began again the involved and apparently fruitless discussion of a program of limitation which would meet
the divergent interests of the nations concerned. The clash between the policies supported by the British and Americans on the one hand, and the group of Continental states, headed by France, on the other, appeared clearly in the two draft conventions presented by Lord Cecil for the British and by M. Boncour for France. Briefly stated, the British proposals aim to apply limitation only to the “striking power of a nation,” i.e., the trained forces which a nation can bring to the front within a limited time; whereas the French aim at strict limitation of standing armies and all types of semi-military organizations, such as police, and semi-private military associations, but oppose limitation of reserves. The French hope to hold Germany to the clauses of the Versailles Treaty which prohibit conscription in Germany and limit her standing army to 100,000; and then to achieve the difficult task of devising a scheme of limitation which will deprive Germany of her advantage of 67,000,000 population to France’s 40,000,000.
After the presentation of the two plans, the Commission decided to proceed with the discussion by examining the two drafts together. In the session of March 29, the American representative, Mr. Gibson, argued strongly against the proposal of the conscription countries that trained reserves should not be included in the estimate of a nation’s military strength. A fair statement, he argued, would present the figures in two columns, one giving the active armies and the other the trained reserves.
INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS
Saar Problem in League Council.— The forty-fourth session of the League Council met at Geneva on March 8, under the presidency of Foreign Minister Stresemann of Germany. The chief problem brought forward for settlement was the dispute between France and Germany over the policing of the Saar Valley, until the proposed plebiscite in 1935. The compromise solution adopted was that the French garrison should be withdrawn within three months, and replaced by a railway defense corps recruited from the Allied occupation forces. This will be used only in exceptional circumstances, and, as a concession to Germany, it may be reduced below the number 800 proposed. Germany held that the local gendarmerie would afford adequate protection.
The Council decided to call two conferences, to both of which the United States will be invited: one in November for the drafting of an international convention to abolish import and export restrictions and prohibitions; and another, a conference of experts on unification of economic statistics.
The Oil War.—A volume of this title, written by the Norwegian student, Anton Mohr, and recently published by Harcourt, Brace, and Company, tells of the struggle of the major powers in recent years for control of the world’s supply of oil. Comment on the volume, in the Saturday Review of Literature for March 19, runs, in part, as follows:
“Some Americans will, perhaps, feel a certain chagrin upon learning that, in the post-war shake-up during which a recalcitrant public opinion kept us out of the mandate plum-pudding, a threat of Britain to shake a Republican Treasury’s vulnerable fiscal policy removed the Chester concession from the realm of possibility, and a certain scandal involving oil occurred at home which made us touchy about the whole subject—that in this period lucky Britain was able somehow to increase her oil holdings from some 2 per cent to about 56 per cent of the world’s available total supply. Our statesmen and industrialists, hampered as they were, have been badly out-maneuvered by the British. Like it or not, as you may, such seems to be the situation.
“It is true that the United States still produces more than 70 per cent of the world’s oil; but the evidence is only too final that in another five years we shall have so far exhausted our supplies that we shall thenceforth have to negotiate with the British for oil as we now do for rubber. Our enormous production only brings the dreaded exhaustion closer. This may, in part, account for the deep respect with which our more serious press has received recently the usually neglected reports of such scientific meetings as that recently held at Pittsburgh, when oil substitutes were being discussed. There was a day when oil was more important even than our ubiquitous crimes of violence. We are said to enjoy the feeling that we are first in size; we are said to be jealous of our independence. And certainly it hurt to meet the British price for rubber, at least it did if we may judge from Mr. Hoover’s cries of rage. Perhaps some of us feel equally humiliated to know that soon we shall have also to go to Britain for oil. One might, of course, venture the suggestion that the key to the situation is not so much the tenderness of our pride as that of certain of our industrial balance sheets. It is also sometimes suggested that some slight and not too costly humiliation of this kind might, 4 in the end, prove beneficial by establishing a more conciliatory and cooperative attitude in the world’s general affairs, though to some it may seem at least as likely to engender a taste for reprisal of some sort.
Professional Notes
“Aside from these considerations, however, the whole question of imperialistic policy in the effort to control such resources is inevitably raised. It brings into sharp relief the industrial inconsequence of national boundaries; but it shows, too, how the dead hand of past political arrangements can lie with momentous consequence upon the throttle of progress.’’
UNITED STATES AND LATIN J AMERICA
Mexican Treaty Terminated.—The U. S. Department of State, on March 22, announced its intention not to renew the one year treaty with Mexico providing for mutual assistance in prevention of smuggling across the Mexican border. The treaty was to expire on March 28. The reason given for ending the treaty was that it bound the United States to “cooperation for the enforcement of laws or decrees relating to the importation of commodities of all sorts into another country with which this Government has no arrangement .... safeguarding American commerce.” The treaty was negotiated last year to facilitate prohibition enforcement. Its pledge of cooperation in regard to supervision of exports from one country to the other would obviously hamper the United States if it decided to lift the embargo on exportation of arms to Mexico, and the decision to end the treaty was taken as a warning that the embargo might be lifted in the near future.
Forged American Despatches.—It was revealed on March 28 that certain documents held by the Mexican Government, and purporting to have been sent from the State Department in Washington to the U. S. Embassy in Mexico City, were, in reality, forgeries, stolen from the Embassy and “doctored” with the object of arousing Mexican hostility and bringing about a rupture of relations. These documents, it was understood, were the theme of recent secret notes to the Mexican Foreign Office.
Marines in Nicaragua.—About 1,600 marines in the transport Henderson were landed at Corinto, Nicaragua, on March 7. It was announced on the same date that a force of marines would be sent to Matagalpa, one of the two Nicaraguan cities not then under American protection, for the purpose of safeguarding American and other foreign interests. The U. S. State Department acknowledged on March 24 that rifles, machine guns and munitions to the value of $217,718 had recently been sold by the United States to the Diaz Government. While there were continued reports of military activities, it was generally believed that the Diaz Government, with American support, would remain in control. Further light on the policy of the U. S. Government in Nicaragua was afforded by the announcement from Washington on March 30 that President Coolidge intended to study the possibilities of the Nicaragua canal route, in view of the indications that the Panama Canal will reach the limits of its present capacity within a few years.
SOUTHERN EUROPE
Italy and the Balkans.—Italy in March again demonstrated her active interest in Balkan affairs by a protest, directly to Jugoslavia and to the major European powers, against alleged preparations of Jugoslavia to support a revolt against the Albanian government of Ahmed Zogu. In answer to this accusation, Jugoslavia charged that Italian officers were directing the concentration of Albanian forces against Jugoslavia and supervising the construction of strategic roads. Jugoslavia expressed willingness to submit the independence and preservation of order in Albania to the control of the League of Nations. As a peaceful solution of the difficulty, the British and French Foreign Offices suggested a direct conference between Jugoslavia and Italy for a treaty in which the two nations should jointly guarantee Albanian integrity and independence. Later, on March 31, Italy stated that she would enter into discussions with Jugoslavia only on two conditions: (1) That Jugoslavia ratify the Nettuna Conventions relating to Fiume, and (2) that she recognize the preeminence of Italian interests in Albania.
The possible dangers of the Albanian situation arise in part from the fact that President Ahmed Zogu’s power in Albania rests largely in the vigorous support of Italy, whereas his pro-Italian policy and alleged aspirations for kingship have aroused strong opposition within the country.
During the March crisis, Italy strengthened her Balkan position by ratifying the Anglo-Franco-Italo-Japanese treaty, which now takes effect, upholding Rumania in possession of the former Russian province of Bessarabia. This insured the friendly attitude of Rumania, in spite of the fact that Alexander I, of Jugoslavia, is a son-in- law of Ferdinand of Rumania, and recently visited the Rumanian capital. Italy also took steps to strengthen her relations with Hungary and Bulgaria. In the recent book on the Balkans by Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of Foreign Affairs, the belief is expressed that Italy is destined to take the place of France as the most influential western nation in Balkan problems.
Turkish-American Agreement.—The agreement with Turkey negotiated by Rear Admiral Bristol, and mentioned in last month’s “Notes,” was later shown by published correspondence to be an extension of the present modus vivendi until June 1, 1928, with provisions for continuance of commercial relations and for the resumption of ordinary diplomatic relations “as soon as possible” by the appointment of an ambassador and consuls. Rear Admiral Bristol, it is reported, will soon return to naval duty after his long and extraordinarily effective service at Constantinople and Angora.
Tangier Parleys.—A series of meetings of the Franco-Spanish Tangier Commission was held in Paris in early March. Spain receded from her demand for complete control of the Tangier Zone, but still held out for many concessions which the French and British flatly refuse.
NORTHERN EUROPE
Renewed German-Polish Parleys.— Negotiations between Germany and Poland for a commercial treaty were renewed on March 9. The resumption of negotiations was the outcome of exertions on the part of France and England at Geneva, and a part of their policy of exacting concessions from Germany as the price of Rhine evacuation.
Soviet-Latvian Treaty.—A treaty between Latvia and Soviet Russia, pledging each country to neutrality in case the other is attacked by a third nation, was initialed at Kovno on March 11. It was stated that a further agreement was under discussion pledging each power not to join in a coalition hostile to the other. The Latvian pact, following upon the Soviet treaty with Lithuania, was looked upon as a Russian countermove to the efforts of Poland, with alleged British support, to line up the Baltic states against the Soviets. The Latvian Foreign Minister declared that the agreement made with the Soviet Union was in no way in conflict with Latvia’s obligations to the League of Nations.
Franco-Soviet Debt Conference.— Debt negotiations between France and the Soviet Union were renewed at Paris in March. The Soviet representatives tentatively offered a total payment of 55,000,000 gold francs spread over a period of sixty- two years, as opposed to the French minimum demand of 80,000,000. The Russian offer was, moreover, conditioned on an immediate loan from France of from two to three hundred million francs. Apparently the only prospect of agreement lay in the possibility of French concessions in return for guarantees of large and increasing shipments of Soviet oil.