LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 12 September 1928, Page 2

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

.AJ. BRIAND’S COMMENT. Australian Press Assn.—United Service GENEVA, Sept. 11. M. Brinnd in a statement to journalists expressed surprise that his speech had produced a commotion. He explained he did not intend to convoy the impression that Germany had bellicose intentions. If general disarmament progressed so little it was (because such a small degree of security hud been achieved. France’s constant efforts were for peace. The disarmament problem was unsolvable without frank speech. It would be a dishonour to Franco if she discontinued her efforts towards disarmament, ow'ing to Russia’s attitude.

M. MIAND'S HEIM.Y. GENEVA, September 10. M. Briand, replying to Herr Mueller, said wc are not party politicians sitting in an international congress, hut men taking into account every factor affecting the world peace. I have often been accused of being a mere spcechmakcr, not a man of action. I am confident Herr Mueller does not share that view.' The Locarno Pact was not a speech. Mueller had demanded a general disarmament, lie exclaimed. Look at Germany, why do not all other states disarm too? 1 It is incorrect to say that Germany is entirely disarmed. She possesses an army of one hundred thousand officers and non-coms to form armies corps and behind them is an immense magnificent reservoir of trained, courageous men, who showed such heroism and military skill in the Great AA’ar, and are capable of rejoining tho colours for another ten years. Mueller himself would admit that, if he regarded the matter from another viewpoint' 1 than that of propaganda. After alluding to Germany’s vast industrial resources capable of rapid adaptation to war purposes, M. Briand said England and France had done all possible for world peace, but they had been singularly unfortunate. They had tried to overcome the difficulties'relating to naval disarmament and produced not a treaty and hot an agreement but a certain rapproachment which might promote disarmament.

“ But what an outcry arose. AA’e have been told that secret clauses and secret agreements existed, though all we did was to try and assist the cause of disarmament.” Competition in armament had already been halted. There was no government in Europe .which was ; daring to propose an increase of either naval or military ..forces. It is easy to say nothing remains to prevent disarmament, but every statesman feels the responsibility which is deeper than popular enthusiasm. An atmosphere of security must he undisturbed. There is a country in Europe where war material increases, despite theatrical gestures favouring disarmament.

BRIAND’S ATTITUDE. EXASPERATES GERMANY. BERLIN, September 10. M. Briand, in his latest speech, at Geneva lias terribly shocked Berlin political circles. The German correspondents have wired their nowspapeis strongest observations. The ‘ ‘ Allegineiue Teitung ” says: M. Briand’s speech was malicious, dogmatic, and unjust. It will make further trouble, and it has given rapproachment its heaviest, blows.” The “ Lokal Anzeiger” says: “A more wicked attack could not be imagined.” ' . The “Deutscher Tage Zeitung says: M. Briand has at last shown his real face. He lias taunted Chancellor Mueller with insolence, which must have reminded Herr . Mueller of Ins humiliation when lie signed the Areisailles Treaty.”

The “ Berlin Courier ” says: The speech indicates there is a new tion arising from the Anglo-French riippfoiiclmieiit. Other newspapers ,use phrases such as “ A devastating speech.” “Is this made by Locarno Briand?” “The German delegation is in • consternation!” “End of the Franco-German understanding.” ,

COMMENT ON BRIAND’S SPEECH. .'Received this day at 9.30 n.m.) LONDON, September 11. The Paris press generally approves of 51. Brinnd’s speech, asserting M. Briand gave an outspoken rejoinder to Dr slueller’s insinuation of double dealing. “ Le Petit Parisien ” said the speech was the most perfect in form and substance of all pronouncements 5L Briaiid has made.

“L’Echo do Paris” is of opinion that it was tactful and more designed to. slow clown progress somewhat and register some resistance to the-insis-tence of Germany’s claims. “Le Matin ” thinks M. Briand wanted to recall Germany to the straight and narrow path of national reconciliation along which progress can only he made with prudence ; also .without looking back. The “Gaulois” considers the German press description of the speech are as deceptive as the highest praise. The, Socialist newspapers consider the speech gave the lie to hopes raised by the signatories of the Kellogg Pact and describe it as characteristic of the new French policy. “ lAHumanite ” (a Communist organ) sees in the speech a programme of imperialistic finance. 1 ;

AT GENEVA. LORD CUSHENDUN’S SPEECH. (Received this day at 9.30 a.m). GENEVA, September 11. Lord Cusliendun said he appreciated ur Mueller’s disappointment at the slow disarmament progress. On the other hand he thought Mueller did not appreciate disarmament difficulties, owing to the States conflicting views thereon; but there was no need to despair. A great amount of disarmament had already occurred. The personnel of the British navy already had been reduced by forty thousand less than in 1914, while she had scrapped over two hundred war vessels, totalling two million tons. Britain also had largely reduced the army and the air force. It was therefore incorrect to suggest that since the covenant whatever might lie the case elsewhere, Britain had not so far drastically reduced armaments in the spirit of the League and gave the fullest possible assurance that the government intended to carry out to the lotter and spirit of the covenant obligations; They were anxious to find a common ground for which they had earnestly striven to reconcile Anglo-French views regarding naval disarmament, regarding which they have reached a compromise. When there were negotiations with a number of states it was necessary to eliminate differences one by one. If unacceptable to other states who were equally entitled to express their views, partnerships could only be provisional. Then it might bo necessary to search for a- fresh basis of common action. He felt confident that an agreement was possible if all were less distrustful of each other, and “ if critics were less ready to attribute to us bidden designs and ulterior motives of which we are entirely innocent and which do not exist, outside the critics imagination."

He concluded—What the world chiefly needed was less suspicious distrust and greater confidence among tho nations, which ho hoped would bo one of the results of the Kellogg Pact,