Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 25 October 1923, Page 2

Diseesst no Fiance’s poliey on the reparation question, the Paris correspondent of the ‘‘.Manchester Guardian" said the (luce fundamental French re(|t:ire*nents are: 1. No conversations, direct or indirect. with Germany uti’oss end uni.' she puts an end to resist.*)n e- in other words, recognises the legality id mo Htihr invasion. 2. No abandonment ot the Ilnur pledge, though meditieation of r might •n* arianged if Germany does what she is required to do. .'I, No revision of the figllios of 11*21. unless an important < oudi'.i.ui - Britain hist agrees to abandon her debt : and. in any ea-e. no abandonment ”i Fnineo’s fixed minimum for r.-pr,ration, so that all the so-called impartial international committee would be allowed to Ho would be to consider and then report to the Reparation Commission (not to tlu* Governments, be it noted) upon the ways and means by which Germany might pay certain annuities during a period of years, the arrangement to be entirely provisional and temporary. The correspondent remarked that the famous report of M. Dnriae regarding the Rhineland and the Ruhr goes far to elucidate this altitude. M. Rariac devotes th,> whole of sections 1 to -I of bis report to showing why France insists upon the retention at all costs of her hold upon the Ruhr. The aim is eventual association of the Ruhr and Lorraine with Fame in “control of a share in German capital—power to control Germany's industrial production and to profit by her economic prosperity."

Day after day the “Temps” and the “Journoc Tndustrielle’’ urge this solution- namely, the acquisition by Franco of shareholding and control of the key industries and coal and coke of the Ruhr. How seriously this |>rojeet* is taken tm the Continent of .Hurope i« shown by a speech of the president of the Italian Metallurgical Association at Milan on duly 12th. Tn that speech he expressed his uneasiness at the “eventuality that is growing more and mote probable of a Franco-German agreement which would unite under the one control the great coalfield of Westphalia and the mineral wealth of (.ermine, making this group masters of the iron industry of the Continent, and rendering it capable of destroying any day it liked the Italian iron and steel industry.” 'similarly, said the ‘'Guardian” correspondent, an explanation can be found for French iclnctance to arrange a final reparation settlement. It lies in what has boon well called here th 0 fundamental anti-thesis between reparation and security. Article t-ii) o! the Versailles Treaty is officially interpreted in such a way as to make French occupation of the Rhineland permanent. As Germany lias not yet begun to fulfil to the letter her treaty obligations the fifteen years’ term of occupation has not yet, it is argued, even, begun to run. Suppose, as the “Matin” suggests, tiro final settlement of reparation is postponed for ten or fifteen years hence, it will not- start, to run until then, and so on until the prospect of Germany’s release fades into the remotest, vaguest future. This conception oi indefinite occupation under the terms of the treaty was put- forward by M. Poincare himself in the “Temps” of fioptomkr 21st, 1021. and ho has been followed by numerous other publicists. M. Duri-'-c treat.- of it in Part 5 of his icpnrt. It helps, too, to exjilain M. Moucheurs declaration that ho would prefer security to reparation. Tn these two basic ideas of the uses that' can be made of th<* Ruhr pledge and the value, political and military, of the Bbii'e bastion is to be found the ultimate explanation of nearly all that is written, said and still more, thought, in Franco todav.