“The people of the United States hold for Japan a peculiar feeling of
regard and friendship” wrote Theodore Roosevelt after the visit to
himself and Elihu Root of Baron Kogoro Takahira, Japanese Ambassador,
last September. After much that has seemed unnecessarily subterranean
in the negotiations between Takahira and the Secretary of State,
admissions have been wormed from official sources that these gentlemen
have consummated a pact that is variously regarded as a miracle of deft
diplomacy; a dangerous entangling alliance or as a farcical declaration
of non-binding intentions.
Subjected to examination, the “agreement” covers the following main
points, stated in brief:
A mutual wish to “encourage the free and peaceful development of their
commerce in the Pacific.”
Since the imperialistic idea is that peace is best preserved by being
prepared for war, this “peaceful development” inevitably means to the
United States a vastly increased naval burden. No less if Japan be
honest than if she be insincere.
The second article declares for the maintenance of the existing status
quo and the “defense of the principle of equal opportunity for commerce
and industry _in China_.”
Has the Chinese boycott of Japanese goods anything to do with this?
Takahira or Marquis Katsura, Japanese premier, please answer.
The third article obligates each nation to respect the territorial
possessions in the Pacific of the other.
What territorial possessions has Uncle Sam save the Philippines, whose
loss would be a good riddance?
The fourth article is nothing more than an elaboration of the second.
The fifth article reveals the purpose, the strength and the danger,
of the understanding in that it pledges each government, should the
present regulations in the Pacific be disturbed in anywise, “or the
principle of equal opportunity, as above defined” be threatened, “to
communicate with each other for the purpose of arriving at a mutual
understanding with regard to the measures they may consider it useful
to take.”
Realizing that no treaty outright could be made without Senatorial
indorsement and that this would mean a departure from all American
tradition and policy, Elihu Root has framed a skillful document which
creates a binding promise to consult Japan in any issue that may arise,
while it escapes the odium that would attach to an actual alliance now.
The real alliance would be precipitated whenever emergency, real or
seeming, made it easily and logically possible to invite the conference
“with regard to the measures they may consider it useful to take.” It
ties this American Republic to an Asiatic despotism in a manner both
unseemly and unnecessary. Nothing is gained that we did not have and
the sacrifice of our best traditions is saddening.
* * * * *
It is not so much the complications that are to be feared, even though
Russia also fronts the Pacific; even though England and China have
doubtless concluded an alliance of their own and even though other
world powers have interests in the Orient which they jealously guard.
Australia has long viewed Japan with doubt and aversion and the news
of the step taken by the United States will probably shatter a real
friendship, based upon white blood and mutual ideals, that could have
been cemented between that independent colony and our government. Even
though the agreement had no untoward consequence, it is a melancholy
fact that the American people have surrendered their constitutional
right to govern themselves or control their policies as to other
nations. Mr. Root has formed an alliance binding in fact,—and evading,
by subterfuge, any terms upon which the Senate could base an action.
In this, Mr. Root has again shown his famous sleight-of-hand
performance, “Now you see it and now you don’t!” The intention to
exploit China, by peaceful means, if possible, but to exploit, is
clear; as is the understanding that Korea and the Philippines are to
be left to their respective masters. Yet, scan the treaty again and it
appears beautifully benevolent. It is indeed a piece of handiwork of
which a corporation henchman may be proud as it more than sustains his
reputation for ability to advise his clients how to make illegal moves
without breaking the law. In the more elegant language of William C.
Whitney, of New York, who was familiar with the promotion of divers
deals: “I have had many lawyers tell me what we could not do, and what
the law forbade. Elihu Root is the first Lawyer I ever had who could
always tell me how to do legally what we wanted to do.”
[Illustration: The Treaty Making Power Lies With Congress