GENEVA DISCUSSIONS

Evening Star, Issue 19659, 12 September 1927, Page 7

GENEVA DISCUSSIONS

LEAGUE ASSEMBLY MEETING

DR STRESEMAHH'S ANNOUNCEMENT

STEP OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright

GENEVA, September 10. Reflections upon events yesterday produce the impression that Dr Stresemann’s unconditional acceptance on behalf of Germany of the optional clause of The Hague Court was far and away the most important*event of the present Assembly. The full significance was hardly realised last night. Dr Stresemann used stage manage--' incut in' making tho ; declaration as a dramatic concluding climax. It was contained in an incidental paragraph of the speech, and the point was somewhat overlooked owing to tho delivery in rapid German being understood by few delegates, but to-day the announcement is recognised as a step of firstclass national importance. This can bo interpreted as a firstround victory for tho opponents of the two-sided attempt by Poland and Holland to revivify tho principles of the protocol, but the struggle is unfinishedThere will be further fights'in committee, but British circles do not fear that finally there will be any serious resurrection of the most objectional features of the protocol, after the speeches of M. Sokal and Dr Stresemann. Tho latter spoke in Gentian, necessitating translations,. first into French and then into English. He emphasised that tho Locarno agreements wove not outside the League. It was precisely the conclusion of these agreements which had brought Germany into the League. It was incomprehensible that doubts should bo expressed as to whether tho Locarno agreements covered all nations concerned, or only some of them. They were tho practicarapplication, in special form, of tho main fundamental ideas of the League. Ho went on to express his belief that the solemn declaration of tho nations against war would not be valueless! Among the discordant voices which had recently arisen were tho voices of rcsnonsiblo statesmen, determining to abolish violence and aggression, which would soon give a clear lead. Dr Stresemann’ concluded with the important announcement that he intended during tho present session to sign, on behalf of Germany, optional clauses of the court of arbitration of Tho Hague. Tins means tho compulsory acceptance of tho Court’s decision in any dispute between nations, who have not signed the optional clauses. At tho tail end of the evening session came M. Scialoja’s address condemning pessimism concerning the League’s future, and pointing out that tho failure of tho Naval Conference could not be attributed to the League. Ho expressed tho opinion that their mutual protection in article 10 of the covenant was far stronger than M. Sokol’s proposition or any motion that tho Assembly could pass, even if it was unanimous. A gap in tho covenant, if any, could, not bo filled up by mere commendation or even amendment. All the juries in tho world would not enable them always to declaw which Power in a dispute was the aggressor. If they attempted to solve within two years problems requiring thirty years the League would bo going at such a pace that it would break, its neck. Tho Assembly then adjourned.

FRANCE AND GERMANY,

LAST CLOUDS REMOVED.

LEAGUE EXISTENCE JUSTIFIED

GENEVA, September 11. M. Briand, in tho Assembly, declared that’,Dr Stfescrnann’s speech removed the last clouds. Franco and Germany were now able to meet openly and discuss tho most delicate questions, which had previously seemed inconceivable. Some people, seeking to profit from producing conflict and dissension, were aiming at tho rupture of tho League, but all tho members of the League belonged to a family working for universal peace. France, more than over, favored obligatory jurisdiction and arbitration.

M. Briand asked whether public discussion on disarmament helped the cause of peace, when legislators were busy reorganising military forces. They must consider public feeling. It was useless to say that there was no means of security for the execution of recommendations. Nobody expected to reach the goal in one spurt. It required an act of faith, and all must make the same effort. If war broke out all ■would be dragged in. Commending the Polish proposals, he said that such declarations were not in vain, likleed, they were registered by the nations,. Transgressors would have to account for themselves before a tribunal of the world’s conscience. Dr Stresemanu’s speech was noble and courageous. -M. Briand declared that the principle of arbitration w r as progressing, as evidenced by Dr Stresemann’s acceptance of compulsory arbitration. Prance bad equally accepted arbitration. The dogs of war had been unleashed in the recent Greco-Bul-garian conflict,'and when the League ordered suspension both parties had honorably obeyed. This alone justified tho existence of the League. Miss Pearce (Australia) followed with a lengthy speech. She outlined Australia’s attitude, and said_ that she was most keenly interested in all proposals making for disarmament and peace. She declared that tho League must not bo stampeded into hasty decisions. Nothing was more likely to lessen confidence in the League than vacillation in pursuit of peace or a desire to pleaso passing phases of public opinion or demands for the sensational and dramatic. Tho presence of representatives of qx-enemy nations, all honestly and sincerely seeking disarmament and peace, was a miracle. Referring to proposals to reconsider the Protocol, she said that lack of confidence in the Protocol had caused serious doubt and misgivings. Australia was inexperienced in international diplomacy, but had had practical experience of compulsory arbitration, which -was tho main principle of the Protocol. Tho term “ compulsory_ arbitration ” itself contemplated ill-will, in dispute and force. While she was not prepared to say that industrial arbitration in Australia had failed, she could not say it could bo classed as an unqualified success. Tho League’s main aim should not bo tho settlement of disputes, but tho prevention of differences developing into disputes requiring intervention, either by tho League or by Tho Hague Court; also the encourage-ment-of settlements by friendly negotiations without resorting to the League. Australia felt that the Protocol would extend the danger of driving disputants into hostile camps, ns industrial arbitration had done in Australia. Let the League earnestly pursue armament by agreement, and success would come.

The previous speeches of M. Briand and Sir Austen Chamberlain were made at a luncheon given by journalists and accredited to tho League. M. Briand's advice, which Sir Austen Chamberlain commended, was an appeal;to journal, ists not to push the criticism-of such a magnificent edifice as tho League to a point which they might later regret.— A. and N.Z. and ‘Sun’ Cable. EUROPEAN FRONTIERS. BRITAIN’S POSITION. GENEVA, September 11. . Sir Austen Chamberlain, in >addressing the Assembly, said that no country had done so-much ,to guarantee fron-

tiers-of other countries as Britain in guaranteeing tho frontiers of France, Germany, and Belgium. She would keep her pledges as faithfully as slip did to '"Belgium in 1914. Could not other nations do as much before pressing Britain to go further, and m so doing bring together two other nations regarding each other with suspicion and fear? He warned Van Blokland that it would bo, impossible to take up the proinciplcs of the Protocol without reopening troubled debates before there was any indication that it. -was necessary for an alteration of mind thereon. Britain could not guarantee all frontiers. It would disrupt tho Empire. His loyalty to the League was profound. buthoyalty to the other league—namely, the Empire—came first. Ho implored the Assembly to have confidence in tho covenant delegates and in themselves. If the Assembly piled sanction upon sanction, it might make its house a living tomb. Td-day’s impossibilities might bo achievable tomorrow, The .League was a sturdy sapling, and eventually nations might assemble under... is protection as beneath the shadow of a mighty oak. Sir .Austen Chamberlain spoke for four hours and a-half, paying tribute to Dr Stresemann and to M. Briand, whom ho complimented on shaking hands with Dr Stresemann as a vow of Franco-German peace. Their speeches answered recreant remarks that tho League was losing its authority. M. Sokal’s motion, though not now, was welcomed, because it resolved to eschew the path of war. Sir Austen Chamberlain agreed with M, Larabvo, who denied that the great Powers were withdrawing from tho Council of Assembly belonging to it. Tho failure of the Naval Conference provided a lesson for the future. Britain had proved by deeds that she earnestly desired the real reduction of armaments. Regarding arbitration, tho Empire was a community of free nations, unable always to accept obligations readily undcrtakablo. by a homogeneous State.—A. and N.Z. and ‘ Sun ’ Cable. DUTCH MOTION AMENDED. GENEVA, September 11. Just before , tho adjournment the Dutch delegation amended Van Blok-: lan’s motion “ declaring that the time had come to restudy not tho actual old Geneva Protocol, but its underlying principles of security, arbitration, and disarmament,” to a simpler, more acceptable, and more harmless motion, asking the Third Commission, to which tho motion will bo referred, to restudy the question of security, disarmament, and arbitration without mentioning the Protocol; so it looks. as though the long-drawn fight required in 1924 to scotch tho Protocol will not need repetition.

JOURNALISTS ADDRESSED

THE POWER OF PEACE.

GENEVA, September 9. M. Briand, addressing tho journalists, made one of the. greatest speeches of his career, and paid a tribute to tho reciprocal friendliness of Geneva’s atmosphere. Though tho work of the League had seemed slow, the power of peace would become epidemic. Sir Austen Chamberlain, speaking eloquently in French, said ho. was pleased at, the adoption of M. Briand’s advice. , < Dr Strcsmann advocated peace and disarmament. He announced, amidst applause. Germany’s willingness, to sign an option or convention on arbitration. There could bo no spirit of peace while there woro occupied territories.

MANDATES COMMISSION,

GERMAN DELEGATE APPOINTED.

GENEVA, September 9. The Council, at a private meeting, appointed Dr Ludwig Kastl, a prominent industrialist, as the German member of the Mandates, Commission. He has had wide experience in Gorman colonics, having spent ten years ni South Africa, where ho remained alter the war as Commissioner to tho British Administration, and later as head of tho Reparations Department of the German Minister of Finance. Tho Council accepted an unconditional offer of 2,000,000d0l from a group of Americans to establish a library at Geneva for the use of the increasing number of students of international affairs.

NON-AGGRESSION PACTS

POLAND’S PROPOSALS,

GENEVA, September 9. The agitations and heartburnings of tho past few' days over Poland’s intentions disappeared in the late afternoon, session of the Assembly, when M. Soknl presented tho actual resolution. Its wording has undergone many alterations, many jurists of various nationalities having taken a hand in draiting. amending, and redrawing it last night. , . ~ . The form accepted earlier in the day bv the big three—Sir Austen, Chamberlain, M. Briand, and Dr Strcscmami—■was altered again at the instance of Warsaw by the inclusion of an appeal to members of the League to conclude the pacts of non-aggrossion which arc disliked equally by Britain and France, the former, as explained previously, because they might be the beginning of a movement which ■would eventually enlarge her present obligations, particularly in the event of Russian aggression against some member of the was finally submitted, omitting tho appeal for pacts.

TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION.

GENEVA, September 9. M. Sokal, head of the Polish delegation, pale with emotion and speaking with difficulty, offered the following declaration: — Tho Assembly, realising its solidarity, does not intend international community, but is inspired by the firm will to maintain peace, recognising that a war of aggression must never servo as a means of settling differences, and believing that the solemn renunciation of all war will create an atmosphere of general confidence favorable to tho process of disarmament. Tho Assembly declares, first, that all war is to remain prohibited: secondly, that all pacific moans must bo employed for tbo settlement of disputes, no matter of what nature, arising among the States. Members of tbo League arc under obligation to conform with these principles.

Tho invitation in tho earlier draft to conclude pacts of non-aggression is eliminated. —A. and N.Z. and ‘Sun’ Cable.

VISCOCKT CECIL

EFFECT OF RESIGNATION BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE. LONDON,' August 30. “ I mucli regret Viscount Cecil’s cessation of his activities, as a member of tho Cabinet, at the League of Nations Assembly, but I do not think that his absence is entirely necessary.” This statement was made by Sir Austen Chamberlain, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, prior to his departure for Geneva. ‘

Much stronger views of the resignation prevail in official circles, says a special political correspondent; Nobody attempts to deny that England has lost a strong man, but the severity of the strictures of tho Prime Minister, Mr Baldwin, is fully (supported in those charters in if* is considered that

Lord Cecil has blundered badly, and while it is not likely that his action will affect domestic politics, it may have a different influence outside. It is certainly a hard Wow at Untain’s influence within the League ol Nations. Although possibly it may not bo said that Lord Cecil was a popular figure at Genova, ho was highly reLord Cecil was feared also, because nobody so quickly summed up the Latin mind. Moreover, he persistently dragged into the light of publicity what some nations tried to restrict to secret diplomacy. Some well-informed people are inclined to regard him as an ultraidealist, whose outlook, because it extended beyond the policy of the Government, rendered a hitch inevitable.