LEAGUE ASSEMBLY

Evening Star, Issue 19665, 19 September 1927, Page 5

LEAGUE ASSEMBLY

THE DISARMAMENT 4 QUESTION M. BONGOUR'S PROPOSAL MODIFICATION OF PROTOCOL. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyrignt. GENEVA, September 10. A desire to speed up progress towards definite decisions munilestcd itself to-day, but when M. Boncour rose and submitted an important resolution which will bo eagerly discussed throughout Europe during the weekend, the picturesque French orator, facing a crowded attendance in the Glass Hall, could not refrain from devoting half an hour’s eloquence to the submission of the proposal, traversing much old ground. The crux of the proposition was that the Disarmament Commission should study the extension of security by a modification of the provision in the protocol in the direction of graduating ' the obligations thereunder in accordance with the signatories’ special geographical situations, as well as the conclusion of regional arbitration agreements. M. Boucour’s proposition was really meant to combine the Norwegian and Dutch theses, and strike a compromise between the solid majority of the League, which still worships at the shrine ol the protocol and universally compulsory arbitration as a panacea tor all ills, and the opponents thereof, headed by ibo British Empire. It also embodies Sir Austen Chamberlain’s idea of extending guarantees, like,Locarno treaties, to other regions.' M. Boncour summed up the aims as a desire for the present assembly to give _ a fresh impulse to disarmament by so improving the state and security of toe world that the success of the Disarmament Conference would bo assured. The committee begins consideration of M. Boncour’s motion on Monday, after which it will probably sit twice daily.

Dll HANSEN’S PROPOSAL. GENEVA, September 18. (Received September 19, at 1.30 a.m.) The Disaniuuncnt Committee began a detailed consideration of the resolutions. It took first Dr Nansen’s proposal of an international arbitration treaty. When a motion was moved to approve of the principle to draw up a draft Mr Pcarco asked wlmt advantage there would be, seeing that many countries, including Australia, under no circumstances would approve of arbitration on all questions. He was reassured that ho would be in nowise committing himself in approving of the drafting, since the draft would later bo submitted tor approval. Anyhow, the treaty would bo purely optional. A great fight movement, headed by M. Boncour, in an attempt to induce the Empire to accept a modified form of tho Protocol begins in the same committee on Monday.

PROHIBITION DEMAND FOR DISCUSSION. GENEVA, September 17. Tho demand lor a general League discussion ou alcoholism, which England and Australia are_ strongly opposing, was formally submitted to tho second Commission m tho form ol a letter, signed by tho Foreign Ministers of Finland, Poland,, and Sweden, it was endorsed by Belgium, Denmark, Czecho-Slovakia, and France, and supported by Italy and Portugal. It was'objected that the question introduced a very dangerous tendency to interfere with a nation’s national policy by acting in an international sphere. The Covenant referred to traffic in women and children and noxious drugs as within the League’s scope, but it did not mention alcohol. Mr Ley (Australia) contended that the Covenant had not made the committee competent to discuss Prohibition, and enthusiasts who were anxious to _ see the world dry only damaged their case b.y raising tho subject before the League. RUMANIA AND HUNGARY DISPUTE DISCUSSED. A LONG DEBATE. GENEVA, September 17. Senator Danduraud (representing Canada), Senor Bethancourt (Cuba), and M. Volonman (Finland) took their seats ut the Council table. Sir Austen Chamberlain read a report of the League’s Committee which examined tho Rumauian-Hungariau dispute relating to Hungarians’ properties in Transylvania, declaring that there must be no agrarian inequality. The post-war peace settlement did not exclude tho Hungarian nationals from the reforms. The committee recommended that Hungary should reinstate a judge to preside ou the mixed arbitral tribunal. If it refused, the League should not appoint members thereof. If Rumania refused, the Council would be justified in taking appropriate steps to ensure the tribunal’s working. Sir Austen Chamberlain urged the acceptance, and emphasised the justice of the recommendations.

Count Apponyi declared that the report was not acceptable to Hungary. It, was contrary to the Trainon Treaty and to legal opinion. He suggested that the tribunal’s competence should be referred to the Hague Court, and declared that the acceptance of the proposals would inflict a mortal blow on international jurisprudence and_ on the League. Ho urged the Rumanian delegate to support the defence of jurisprudence. M. Titulesco, speaking emphatically and gesticulating violently, said he would accept the proposals if Count Apponyi did. The latter agreed to accept the Council’s decision and to recommend it to his Government. M. Titulesco contended that tho Council must act in order to preserve peace. His Government emild not guarantee peace in Rumania if the agrarian law was undermined. Sir Austen Chamberlain, replying to Count Apponyi, that the League constantly kept in view the respect of international institution. Rumania’s refusal rendered reference to the-Hague Court impossible. The whole question turned on a correct interpretation of the Treaty of Trianon, upon which, tho eminent jurists whom the committee consulted were unanimous.

M. Boncour - supported the committee's report. _ Finally, Sir Austen Chamberlain paid that the Conned members agreed with the first part of tbs committee’s' rerommendationsrbut disagreed with the sanctions enforceable in the event of the parties refusing - to accept the recommendations. He proposed a final appeal to Rumania and Hungary to agree. Tile debate lasted three hours, the Council Hall being . crowded./.- Dr Stresemanu supported C.ount Apponyi. Sir Austen Chamberlain reallocated the acceptance - of the report, 'find 1 it was then decided that all the Council members should express their views. It thus became clear that there was no immediate chance of _ agreement, and the discussion was adjourned till September 19. Sin‘Austen-Chamberlain postponed his departure pending :■ set- 1 . Jlefiniht.

1 DAY-LONG DUEL. GENEVA, September IS. (Deceived September If), at 1.30 a.m.) The Council sat from 10 o’clock in the morning till 8 in the evening trying to find a solution to tho Hungarian land squabble. Finally, when tempers were heated, tho president had to adjourn the meeting to give tho pro tagonists a chance to sleep on the awkward position. Tho president stated that ho hoped that second thoughts would produce a situation less menacing to the future of tho League and tho world’s estimation of the Council as the settlor of disputes. The glass hall was crowded all day to witness the lengthy duel. Count Apponyi was at one end ol the table, tall, upright, bearded, grey-headed, and well over eighty, and at the other end was M. ‘Titulcsco, clean shaven, and resembling a modernised Chinaman.

Count Apponyi sat the whole morning with dignified restraint during the presentation of the case by M. Titulesco, who declared that the Hungarian claims amounted to 400,000,000 gold francs, which was bevond Rumania's means. Neither yielded an inch to the other, and there was a deadlock; then Sir Austen Chamberlain attempted a partial success by socking a unanimous voto on the main principles of bis committee’s recommendations to the effect that agrarian reforms, could be carried oat from enemy territory, provideo that tho enemy owners were treated exactly as Rumania's, omitting, however, the specific recommendation to which both parties objected. This was expected to bring a climax, and everyone was excited. Count Apponyi began an appeal to individual members to say yea or nay, but went off on another long harangue. AN UNPOPULAR REGIME. In a recent number of tho ‘ Observer ’ Mr Arnold Toynbee reviews a new book, ‘The Minorities in Rumanian Transvylvania,’ by Zsombor do Szasz. He writes: “The picture presented is painful. We are shown an official Rumania trading on her accepted status as a member of the European comity of nations, and indeed of the victorious Entente, in order to oppress helpless minorities, endowed with a more ancient culture than hers, in contempt of treaties and of the recognised principles of Western civilisation. The governing class of the prewar Rumanian kingdom, with hardly half a century of political experience to its credit, has suddenly been invested with the dominion over twice as large a territory and more than twice as largo a population as those over whicii it ruled in 1914. Between tho new territories annexed from Hungary and’ the pre-war kingdom there has never been a political bond (except the superficial and transitory link of Ottoman suzerainty) since tho day when Aurelian evacuated Dacia. Tho inhabitants of tho ex-Hungarian territories are largely Magyars and Gormans; and even tho Rumanian element, which hardly exceeds 50 per cent, of the total, is divided from the Rumanian population of tho pre-war kingdom by a different political history and by a higher standard of culture imparled through membership (albeit subordinate membership) in a more progressive State. The acquisition of this new domain confronts tho Rumanian governing class with a problem that demands the highest capacities of statesmanship. Unhappily, tho record seems to show that the Rumanian governing class has approached tho problem in a spirit of nationalist fanaticism, and with a habit of administrative corruption which make the new regime a burden to ail nationalities in Trpnsy]vania (not excluding the Transylvanian Rumanians). . . Tho picture draw by Monsieur do Szasz of post-war Transylvania under Rumanian rule bears an unmistakable resemblance to Scotns Viator’s picture of the self-same territory under Magyar rule before 1914. Tho roles are reversed; the persecutors and the persecuted haver changed.- parts; but the same evils are being inflicted and suffered.”

To this a Rumanian writer replies: “ I am sorry that Mr Toynbee’s own historical knowledge gave way to M. de Szasz. Before the war it was but a small caste that wanted to dominate by sheer oppression a foreign province inhabited by various divergent nationalities. Now the position is totally different. Wc rule what is an integral part of Rumania, relying upon a great peasant population akin to us ; and wc have no interest whatever in depriving racial minorities of their rights. Are they not .suffering at all, then? They are, but not as minorities; they share with us ‘ the slings and arrows ’ of petty officials, of political intriguers, of a justice and administration sometimes far below the civilised standard—things inherent to a society with hardly sixty years of _ modern selfgoverning tradition, tilings we understand and try to improve. And to this-end we are helped by all the Hungarian intellectuals of Transylvania, striving with us as citizens of the same land.” THE DISPUTE EXPLAINED (British Official News.) Press Association—By Wireless—Copyright RUGBY, September IS (Received September 19, at noon.) The dispute at tho League Covncil arises out of Rumania’s refusal to per' mit a mixed Hungarian-Bumaniau arbitration tribunal to decide aj peals by Hungarians in Rumania against the expropriation of their property under the Rumanian agrarian reform law. The proposed solution requests Rumania, who has withdrawn her judge from the tribunal, thereby rendering it impossible to act, to icinstate her judge. It also recommends that both parties should accept the principle that there should bo no inequality in the application of the Rumanian agiarian law as between Hungarian and Rumanian nationals. THE MANDATES COMMISSION SAMOAN TROUBLES. GENEVA, September 16. Dr Nansen, opening the discussion on tho Mandates Commission’s report, mentioned the Samoan trouble. Mr Knowles referred to the circumstances into which tho Royal Commission is inquiring preparatory to reporting to the Mandates Commission. For this reason, he said, it was premature to discuss tho matter. GERMANY'S FORMER COLONIES MANDATES DESIRED. GENEVA, September 1”. Asked whether Germany intends to claim mandates for her former colonies, Dr Stresemann, in a conference with journalists, replied: “Yes, certainly; but. not non - . It will become a question for League legislation in tho near future.” • - . CANADA'S COUNCIL ELECTION EQUALITY WITH BRITAIN, ; . LONDON, September TO. • The ‘Star’ says: “Canada’s election to the League Council removes the last doubt regarding the dominions’ absolute equality with Britain, not only in Imperial, but in world councils. Canada cannot be a substitute for the United States, but she. is better- fitted to express tho North American . viewpoint than any other. It will be in-

teres ting to watch the reaction in the dominions. Will they, as full partners, take a full share of Imperial responsibilities and costs-, such as the defence ot Australia’s enormous coast line? Is the British taxpayer still to bear the brunt, and is Australia to solace herself only by an occasional cruiser or by comparatively small donations to such costly ventures as Singa-pore?”-—Sydney ‘Sun’ Cable. A FRENCH VIEW, PARIS, September IS. (Received September 19, at 1.30 a.m.) ‘ Le Matin ’ says that Canada’s election is welcome, because, in future the British delegate will no longer be able to speak in the name of the whole Empire. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT. GENEVA, September 18, (Received September If), at' 1.30 a.m.) A difficult situation arose at the commencement, of the Council. The President is chosen annually in alphabetical order. It was China’s turn, but her non-permanent seat is almost farcical in view of the present Chinese situation, while her dues to the League, now £240,000, have never been paid, - The Chinese delegate, Mr Wang, diplomatically withdrew in favor of M. Villegas.