(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

To an eye-witness the mass meeting last Monday on the Washington Conference showed the keen interest the student body at Harvard is taking in international questions-- and to me, a student from China, the passage of the 4th and 5th sections of the resolution, namely, those on the preservation of the political and territorial integrity of China, and the upholding of John Hay's "open door policy", without almost a dissenting opinion, demonstrates most eloquently American friendship and good will for China. But why the 6th section voicing opposition to the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was voted down was a surprise to me. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance is the very antithesis of the political independence and territorial integrity of China and the "open door" policy. It seemed to no that the history of the Alliance in the Orient and its full significance are not fully understood by students in this part of the world.

During the last twenty years there was not one act of aggression of Japan on the continent of Asia that could not be traced to the existence of the Alliance. The Alliance was concluded in 1902. The defeat of Russia, the passing of one kingdom--the independence of Korea--, and the Japanest domination of Manchuria, were among the first fruits of the Alliance. Without the Alliance the result of the Russo-Japanese War would have been different. In 1914, before--Japan mobilized to attack Tsing-Tao, the former German leasehold in Shantung, she called on Great Britain for joint action, basing her request on the Alliance. That was the beginning of this complicated international problem of Shantung, which the iniquitous decision of the Paris Peace Conference has made known the world over. Then the Shantung question started the notorious '21 Demands of 1915, whose contents might not be familiar to the average reader, but they were most inimical to the vital interests of China. The Alliance was partly responsible for the 21 Demands. If there is any one thing of vast importance to China at the coming Washington Conference, it is the absolute negation of the 21 Demands. Having received such advantages from the Alliance, it is small wonder why the Japanese government was doing all it could to facilitate its renewal, including the sending of the crown prince to England on a state visit at about the time of the sessions of the Imperial Conference at London.

What Japan wants is political domination of China. To Japan the "open door" and equal opportunity for the commerce of all nations is out of the question. Political and territorial integrity of China will permit the growth of a stronger and unified China, which is a danger to the Imperialistic Japan of today. Whatever is instrumental to the Japanese Imperialistic ambition on the Asiatic continent threatens not only the "open door" of China but menaces the peace of the world. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, judging from its history, has been in no small degree instrumental to the expansion of Japanese Imperialism. For this very reason all friends of China and of the peace of the world have recently voiced their opinion of opposition to the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. T. C. Woo, 2G.,   October 25, 1921.