WHY OUR FLEET MANCfcUVkES IN PACIFIC OCEAN AIDED PEACfe l^l

policy or tone down the military propaganda. On the contrary, I
can see some Japanese writers arguing that having recognized
Japan as an equal on the immigration issue, it would now be all
the more appropriate and logical for us to recognize her as an equal
on the naval issue. Besides, who can ever predict with certainty
that any bill will pass the Senate ? We thought our Lausanne Treaty
with Turkey secure, and, so far as I am aware, the administration
thought the World Court Protocol would pass, yet both were defeated.
To bring up the repeal of the discriminatory provisions of the Ex-
clusion Act and to have the effort fail would be disastrous. Better
e t things lie for the present,

WHY OUR FLEET MANOEUVRES IN THE
PACIFIC OCEAN AIDED PEACE

April i, 1935

Dr. Ivan Lee Holt, recently elected President of the Federal Council
of the Churches of Christ in America, came to see me on his way
home from Shanghai. I had arranged an interview for him with
Hirota, to whom he merely wishes to deliver a message of goodwill.
He asked me what position I thought he ought to take as regards
the efforts of the churches at home to have the scheduled naval
manoeuvres in the Pacific cancelled on the ground that they would
constitute a provocation and threat to Japan.

I went to the bat hard on this issue and told him that I thought
the movement against the manoeuvres was both nefarious and
actually dangerous. The manoeuvres, which were purely routine
and had been arranged some two years ago, would not come within
1500 miles of the shores of Japan; we have two oceans to protect
and it would be not only the height of absurdity but a confession
of weakness and fear of Japan if we were to cancel them. If we are
to shape our policies and actions solely with a view to pleasing the
Japanese, it will make them more cocky than ever and simply invite
aggressive tactics on their part and will give them the impression that
the so-called pacifist element in our country is so strong that they,
the Japanese, can do whatever they please and ride roughshod over
our rightful and reasonable interests without any concern whatever
as to protective action on our part—a distinctly unhealthy impression
to convey.

We want peace, not war, but the surest way to court war is to
follow the weak and defeatist policy advocated by some of the churches,
and the best way to ensure peace is to follow the wise policy of our
Government, preparedness without aggressiveness, and protection of
our rightful interests interpreted in the spirit of the good neighbour.
If Japan sees fit to interpret our routine naval manoeuvres as sabre-
rattling she has only herself to thank, for it was certainly Japan
which began the rattling, and the more we adopt a spineless attitude,
the more will Japan be tempted to unsheathe the sword. There