17 SEPTEMBER 1932, Page 13

FAR EASTERN PERILS [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR, —Speaking

as one recently returned from China, I venture to express my hearty agreement with Mr. Owen Green's article, but to dissent on a few points of detail and to draw a somewhat different conclusion : (1) In the first place, I believe it is not Chiang Kai-shek, but T. V. Soong, the brilliant young Finance Minister and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan, who is the moving spirit in the Nanking regime. Chiang has lost ground in the last few months because of his alleged failure to give sufficient support to the Nineteenth Route Army in the Shanghai fighting (the motive alleged being jealousy ; the real reason probably that he could not bring reinforcements across the Yangtse owing to the presence of Japanese gunboats), his alleged weakness toward Japan and his desire to fight the Communists instead of outbidding them by a policy of successful reform and reconstruction. It should be added that General Chiang and his brother-in-law, Mr. T. V. Soong, although they do not always see eye to eye, have been twin pillars of the Government since its inception.

(2) The fighting at Shanghai did not frighten, but, on the contrary, enormously strengthened Chinese National feeling.

In the People's Tribune some months ago Mr. T. V. Soong published an article on " The Significance of the Warfare Around Shanghai," from which the following significant words may be quoted :

" As in a nightmare, China had been compelled to learn that her faith in the Covenant, the Nine-Power Treaty and the Pact of Paris was an illusion, that the law of the jungle still ruled and that, if China were to survive as a nation, she must become an adopt at slaughter. . . . Thanks to the valour of the Nineteenth Route Army and their comrades of the Fifth Army now we know that if we but arm and train ourselves properly we are fully capable of defending our legitimate rights and the national honour. In realizing this truth China has at last found her soul."

That is the spirit of Nationalist China to-day and the lesson drawn from the epic fighting at Shanghai.

Mr. Green rightly points out that the alternative in China is between Nationalism and Communism. True, but the Communists, as elsewhere in the East, are also Nationalists. The chief arguments against the Nanking Government have been that it is too weak and is selling the country to foreign Imperialism ; more active armed resistance and recourse to Soviet Russia for help are advocated instead of reliance on the United States and the Western Members of the League.

From these facts I draw the same conclusion as Mr. Green, namely, that the present Central Government can survive only by making a success of Nationalism, that the alternative to this Government is chaos, leading to Communism, and that consequently the most urgent need is to help'the Government to succeed. I agree again that the first need is success in reconstruction and that means expanding and speeding up the plan of co-operation with the League which has already shown such promise. This might well be considered by the World Economic Conference, for Chinese reconstruction means opening the world's greatest potential market. But I draw a further conclusion diametrically opposite to that of Mr. Green, namely, that no compromise with Japan is possible. Any Chinese Government attempting such a compromise would be instantly swept out of existence. Scarcely anyone who has been in China in the last year can have any doubt on this vital point.

If the League surrenders to Japan over Manchuria, not only will there be no assistance to China, for Japan will prevent it, thereby condemning China to chaos and Communism, but a mortal blow will have been struck at the whole system of collective peace obligations on which the world has based its hope of avoiding another world war. The first consequence will be the collapse of the Disarmament Conference, the second the withdrawal of Germany and Italy, the third a condition of indescribable confusion and a revival of fear and hatred in Europe that will make the World Economic Conference impossible.—/ am, Sir, &c.,