Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 11, 1931. INTERNATIONAL UNREST

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 109, 11 May 1931, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 11, 1931. INTERNATIONAL UNREST

Thirteen years and a half since the signing of the Armistice in the War that was to end war there is not yet much evidence that the world is settling down to peace. ■ The news from Paris and Rome, from Delhi, Calcutta, and Nanking, all points very strongly in the opposite direction. In Paris a momentous debate on foreign policy reveals to-day that the old enemies of France who were compelled to accept humiliating terms of peace twelve years ago are almost as much on the nerves of her deputies as they were before the War. By a vote of 450 to 52 the Chamber approved of M. Briand's foreign policy, but there was not a ( single dissentient from the motioncondemning the Austro-German "union." And even the man . who based his project of a "United States of Europe" largely upon economic grounds denounced this Austro-Ger-man agreement as "an error in psychology." Its psychological effect upon the nation which is now the greatest military Power in Europe, and seems to be also the most mili-tary-minded, has certainly been very unfortunate. Yet it is highly probable that a matter which does not appear to haye been mentioned by M. Briand or anybody else; really took precedence in everybody's mind over the tariff agreement which they were unanimous in condemning. With a most ill-omened promptitude Signor Mussolini has followed up the lamentable breakdown of the Franco-Italian naval negotiations with a Bill which is described as containing "far-seeing provisions for mobilising* men and women in wartime," but may well impress the French mind as not looking so very far ahead.J Mercifully exempting invalids and expectant mothers, this Bill otherwise subjects everybody between the ages ;of 16 and 70 to national service, combatant or noncombatant, as soon as war is declared. So thorough-paced a measure of conscription we do not remember to have seen since France herself led the way with a similar measure a few years ago. But when Signor Mussolini next addresses, his Blackshirts and talks about their forest of rifles which darkens the sun and of the battleships and aeroplanes which'are more beautiful than words he will, of course, be able to say that the object of his measure is merely to guard against aggressipn. And M. Briand, though he may think. Italy guilty of an even more serious "error in psychology" than that of which he accuses Germany.and Austria, will not commit the psychological error of sayipg so. But though he will Hvisely; refrain from Signor Mussolini's freedom ;of speech, lie will think exactly as an overwhelming majority of his countrymen are thinking, and we shall- continue to have that strange spectacle of the most eloquent advocate of peace in Europe concurring in all the great schemes, military and naval, by which, his country is providing/for its own security and affecting others with the same sense of insecurity of which Germany was the chief cause before the War. ' - Despite M. Briand's stfong objection to the proposed Customs Union between Germany and Austria, he.was severely attacked by one of the most faithful and alert of the French die-hards. The Germans and Austrians caught you off your guard, said M. Franklin Bouillon. Everyone, is aware of the Austro-German Customs Union except you and your ambassador. But M. Briand had protested weeks ago, and it is not clear that he could have done if any earlier, or that an earlier protest would have been any more effective. Whether one likes or dislikes the agreement, in itself, the secrecy with which the negotiations were conducted affords another conspicuous illustration of the tactlessness for which the Teuton is notorious, and British critics have not prevented by their sympathies either with Germany or with Free Trade from saying so just as plainly as the French. They have been concocting this agreement for a Zollverein. for at least a year, says tho "Spectator" (28th March), but when the German Foreign Minister, Herr, Curtius, went to Vienna the other day to put the finishing touches to it he said not a word about tho purpose of his visit. The secret was, indeed, kept with a strictness which is rcmarkablo in those days of easy leakage. It is plain enough that vchen Dr.' Schober, the Austrian Foreign Minister, visited Berlin a ycn<r ago ho went to make tho draft of the agreement. Germany and Austria i.would have dono better to prevent suspicion—ao far as that was possible—by taking the rest of Europe into their confidence. It is also pointed out by ihe "Spectator" that the announcement was made a few days before the Piesearch Commission appointed by the League of Nations for the investigation of the economic aspects of M. Briand's federal scheme had been convened to meet in Paris. It would have been courteous and strictly relevant to the work of the Commission if the first disclosure of the arrangement had been frankly made by the German and Austrian representatives at that meeting. But it almost looks as though the negotiations had been hurriedly concluded in order to anticipate the Commission. Whether from stupidity or from design the

right course was taken to aggravate the suspicions and the searchings of heart inseparable from so delicate a subject. In that respect at least Germany has no defence to M. Briand's charge that Germany and Austria have made "an error in psychology." In his speecli in the French Chamber M. Briand admitted that the proposed Customs Union was not forbidden by any treaty, but he added that it "could not be realised without the consent of the League of Nations." At the first glance this looks like an appeal to Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles, which reads as1 follows: Germany acknowledges and will respect strictly the independence of Austria within the frontiers which may be fixed in a Treaty between that State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers—she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable except with the consent of tho Council of the League of Nations. It is clear, however, that, though the merging of Austria's independence in her "Anschluss" or political union with Germany is what France, Italy, and Czecho-Slovakia are afraid of, and what may well be the ultimate outcome of the Customs Union, that issue is not so directly raised as to justify a protest at this stage. As we were correctly informed by cable on 24th March, the ground taken in the protests lodged by the three nations we have raised was that the agreement violated the Geneva Protocol of the 4th October, 1922. According to tlie Berlin . correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," ' apaprently the main argument brought forward against the agreement is that it is a breach of the "most-favoured nation" clause contained in the German Protocol of 1922. The German Government denies that there is any breach. It was further pointed out by the Austrian Foreign Minister that entry into the proposed scheme was open to all other States, and that: invitations had already been extended to tho States especially interested. The German Press is reported to be as unanimous in favour of the agreement as the French Press is against it, and the Hitlerites have not made for peace by their, exultation over what-they/hope will be its ultimate consequences. On Britain's behalf Mr. Henderson has wisely observed a strict neutrality, and it may be hoped that he will be able to arrange a peaceful settlement through the Council of the League of Nations.