Diplomatic Moves

The general situation in Eastern China remained, as it has for the past few weeks (TIME, June 15 et seq.), pregnant with ugly possibilities. The Chinese did a great deal of agitating. Foreigners took many steps to secure safety of life. Both sides engaged in desultory conversations which had no outcome. Strikes were maintained in practically all the seaboard cities. At Wukingfu, Kwangtung Province, one male and two female missionaries were beaten and knifed.

Diplomatically, however, a number of important moves were made. A short time ago Washington proposed, somewhat nebulously, that an international conference might soon be called to reconsider the attitude of foreign Powers toward Chinese domestic affairs. It is now common knowledge in diplomatic circles, although it is not admitted, that Washington obtained the previous agreement to this proposal from London. At all events, the effect was that last week France ratified two Nine-Power Treaties signed in 1922 at Washington, thereby clearing the stage for concerted action by the nine Powers (the U. S., Britain, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and China).

One Nine-Power Treaty related to Chinese customs. The other and more important contained Mr. Elihu Root's resolutions that the Powers agree to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial and administrative integrity of China, and at the same time agree to maintain the principle of equal opportunity for all nations in commerce and industry. Under these general terms lay specific proposals to call an international conference (which was virtually called last week by President Coolidge) to consider the abrogation of extraterritoriality (trials by consular courts), the setting up of mixed courts, withdrawal of foreign troops and retrocession of leaseholds.

French ratification of these treaties cleared the way for the Powers concerned to give effect to their good resolutions concerning China. Unfortunately, the Powers, Britain in particular, have been unable to see the Chinese woods for the trees. British Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain in numerous speeches made it evident that the cause of the present Chinese unrest is due to Bolshevik influence, which, of course, Bolshevik Foreign Minister Georg Tchitcherin indignantly denied. Unbiased reports from China--that is, the average of biased reports, for all communications from that once celestial land are more or less colored--seem unanimous that the root of the disturbances is due to the foreign Powers which exploit China economically and dominate her politically. Bolshevik influences, which are obviously existent, found rather than caused a situation of deep discontent, which was naturally receptive of Moscow's virulent propaganda.

But if Bolshevism is not at the bottom of the Chinese anti-foreign movement, it is a menace capable of endless trouble in China which can be offset only by the unified action of the Powers. The greatest danger is that the Chinese Government, being met with nothing from the Powers (mainly Britain) but chilly demands for justice with indemnities for the Shanghai outrages (TIME, June 15 et seq.), will listen readily to the friendly advances of Moscow. Undoubtedly with this in their minds, the U. S., Britain and Japan agreed to a compromise at Tokyo aimed at calming China, while at Swampscott President Coolidge insisted on a scrupulous observance of the Nine-Power Treaties, the respect for foreign lives and property by China and virtually called an international conference for the fall.

The signs in Peking were that the Chinese Government would do its best-- and what that is remains to be seen--to restore quiet. How far the nationalistic students will support the central Government is another speculation which appears equally impossible to hazard. Said The New York Times: "When do Chinese students study?"