ស
those who said they had suffered injury and who declared their intention further to resist the Pritish. The paper's reporter in Hong "ong
naturalle knew that from the Chinese noint of view the magistrate was only doing his duty, since the Chinese government insisted that they were responsible for Jurisdiction in Kowloon, The crux of the matter was the question of jurisdiction and yet not one word about Jurisdiction was mentioned in the whole report,
On the 7th February 1948 the "anchester Guardian printed the news of the note from the Chinese Ambassador in london to the "oreign Office which was in reply to the British note on the "owloon question. Originally the Chinese authorities had suggested that the Fowloon and Shameen incidents should be discussed together but the British insisted on separate discussione. When the Chinese Ambassador replied to the Pritish note on fowloon therefore he naturally did not mention Thameen. The "anchester Guar`ian, however, in printing the news of this note used the headline "Centon Outrage China does not Apolegise”. Naturally the readers exclaimed, **hat! They burn down "eople's buildings and yet won't apologise!" The Times report was similar in nature. The English public don't know that the Chinese Government expressed regret after the occurrence of the Shameen 'no' dent. They don't know that 'r. McNeill announced this in arliament or that the British Embassy in China received a reply from the Chinese Government promising to pay compensation in accordance with international practice for the losses suffered by the Pritish. The English press have completely ignored these facts.
•
In addition to news reports there was also editorial comment, The Economist was conaratively fair. They felt that both sides were at fault in the "owloon Tncident, But as regards the Shameen Incident they considered it was undoubtedly the work of wolitical agitators, and in their anal-sis they did not mention the fact that the "ong Tong police fired on and injured the inhabitants of "ewloon city. The mimes centred their comment on the Chinese press and said that if the Chines~ censorship authorities had not allowed the Chinese freedom to attack the Hong Yong Goverment this outrage would not have occurred. "hey then said that the Chinese Coverument hað r∙alised that the anti-"ritis nro: maganda in the Chinese press was in danger of damaging "ino-"-itish friendship, and that they had forbidden the printing of ary report on the owloon incident other than official reports. It was to be regretted that the Chinese Government at the same time rohibited the printing of reports contrary to the Chinese Government reports. This angered the Vinister of "nformation, Holling on Tong, who sent a telegram to the Timos asserting the freedom of the press existed in China, and the Govern- ment definitely d'd mot censor Newspapers, The Times printed the whole of the original telegram and ther contradicted it saying that although the censorship system had been abolished the Chinese Government still had methods of controlling the press. Then they suddenly stated in conclusion that the "ritish people realised the difficulties experienced by the Chinese Government in controlling the preas, They only blamed them for not being sufficiently intelligent in their control.
I do not want to añont the tu quoque attitude in order to contradict other people's criticism. An far away and cannot say whether the Chinese pres: was just as bad. Moreover, if it was bad we cannot exouse ourselves because others are just as bad. The object of this article is to bring out the simple and obvious principle in “he relations between countries, which is that in international disputes people only blame others and cannot see their own shortcomings.
The Chinese and Pritish authorities are now seeking a deacful and amicable settlement. Tf both sides examine their own shortcomings then they will probably suceed. *f they can only see each other faults, even if the matter is settled, anicahle co-one “ation will be only a diplomatic phrase.