Genoa Conference.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1922, Page 3

Genoa Conference.

MTSIHAUAN AND N.Z. OADLI ASSOCIATION. RUSSIAN REPLY; . GENOA, May 12. The Russian reply considers the Powers’ reference to an arbitral tribunal op the questions of war debts, a moratorium and pre-war debts, makes W - the sovereignty of the Soviet the sport of fortune. It agrees that former owners of property should enjoy preferential rights in Russia. It urges that Russia’s claims and counter-claims, past and present, should be entrusted to a mixed committee of experts, nominated' by the conference. ' ‘ LONDON, May 12. A summary of the Russian reply is issued. It confirms the preamble, al- j ready cabled. I It adds: ‘‘The Russian delegation cannot accept any prohibition regarding propaganda, unless it is such as is forbidden by the law of the land. Russia will discuss with the Powers interested any request to refrain from disturbing the territorial or political status quo. Russia cannot be compelled to assume responsibilities to the nationals of foreigl Powers for the annulment of her public debts and for the nationalisation of private property. A revolution is force majeure and there is no obligation to compensate, but, in a spirit of conciliation, the principle of the Cannes resolution is accepted, and Russia accepts the liability for public, but not for war debts, on the condition that the losses caused by the foreign wars, and blockades arc recognised. LONDON, May 11. The Australian Press. Association’s Genoa correspondent states: M. Lcliitcherin has handed the Russians reply td ilib Secretary of the Genoa Conference. On a first rending, it cannot be regarded as an entirely' satisfactory document. Nevertheless, it affords a reasonable basis for further negotiations. The character is such that a discussion on peace can be undertaken forthwith. There are two sides to it—the question of economics, and the establishment of peace. The reply contains lengthy arguments on the subject of private property and Russian economic requirements. It is doubtful whether this can be discussed without necessitating a delay, but the Russians *nre extremely desirous of securing peace, and, in the British view, this side can be gone on with.

A BRITISH VIEW. LONDON, May 12

The Australian Press Association correspondent at Genoa states: “The British Empire delegation has been summoned to analyse the Russian reply, which consists of about 8000 words. The- major portion is taken up with empty polemics, which make negotiations almost impossible. Most of the pages are about as valuable as paper roubles. Towards the end, the Russians get to business, and, with some claim to reason, declare that the Allies’ memorandum asks Russia to take up serious obligations without receiving any return, except vague promises. What the Russians want to know is: Just what these promised credits actually amount to ; and how they will rehabilitate Rnss : nn industrial life? The most satisfactory feature of the reply is the earnest desire to enter a Peace Pact, and, even if the document is not sound as a basis for negotiation, it is one which demands a reply. Although the economic side is t'-e most important one for Russia, if t! e Soviet can stand the inevitable delay there will lie in arriving at a solution thereon, it is entirely a matter for them. The Pence Pact proposal will undoubtedly produce a real struggle because . the reply refers to the position of France during the French revolution,; and to the confiscation of property on | that occasion. The Russans draw an annlogy between their revolution and the struggle in France in 1789-93. It is stated —but statement must be accepted with scare reserve —that France will refuse to ac•or-' reply under any circumstances, and that she does not wish to see her present prominent position in Europe frittered away by any Peace Pact. The same sta+etnent also suggestst that her siding with Belgium over the private p: operty question was merely as a pretext on which she Could maintain resistance to any pact of non-aggression. I learn the Italian view entirely coincides with that held by the British, ho'li nations being firmly determined to pursue the conference to a successful conclusion. It will take a day or two for the various delegations to assimilate tbo Russian document, which probably will not come before the Sub-Commiss : on before Saturday or early next week.

CONSIDERED NOT NEGOTIABLE

GENOA, May 12

While it is generally believed that the conference will nominate an expert committee, as suggested in the Russian reply, the delegates are almost unanimous in regarding the document as not being a negotiable one. The French freely describe it ns an impudent, if expert-, t’The committee asked is being formed. It is believed it will be instructed to negotiate further with the Russians on the basis of the Cannes Resolutions and the convening/Powers' Memorandum. When the committee work - is completed, the Powers-will possibly convent a new conference. M. Barthou and Mr Lloyd George had a lengthy conference, and discussed the reply later, and it is reported to have been admitted that it would be useless to continue to negotiate with the Russians on the lines of their reply. The neutrals, more or loss agree with Lloyd George, j

CONFERENCE REPORT. (Received this day at 9.50 a.m.) GENOA, May 12

British, supported by the Italians, intend to submit pnjposals for a non-aggressive truce, lasting several years; on the basis of the present frontiers, on the' ground that the breaking up of the Conference would expose Europe to the danger of war.

j REPLY NOT FAVORED. PARIS, May 12

The newspapers unanimously describe the Russian reply as unacceptable. The “Echo de Paris” declares the answer is an ironic, hypocritical impudent document and the Genoa Conference is at an end;

The “Journal” says the only good point in the reply is that it will end all discussions and compel European Powers to end dissentions.

The “Petit Parisien” remarks tjiat victory is not with Britain but on the continental side.

The “Petit Journal” states the reply only points to the efforts of Lloyd George, Schanzer and Wirtli, to create a conciliatory attitude, as having completely failed, but the latest instructions from Moscow are marked with the triumph of. Extremist Bolshevism.

The “Matin” says the Conference is certain to end in a fiasco.