The Daily News. FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 1920. ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 August 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 1920. ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS.

The difference of opinion between] the British and French Governments relative to events in Po-1 land, and matters concerning the 1 policy to be adopted towards Soviet Russia, lias been magnified into an Entente rift. It is quite possible for Britain and France to have divergent views cin many matters without in any way endangering the solidarity of the Entente. Now that America has isolated herself for the time being ■as regards international affairs, and ItalFjs fulix «eosi|ied with

her own troubles that she has to stand aloof from others, it is more than ever essential that Britain and France shall stand firm as allies in preserving peace, for they alone remain in active touch out of the Great Powers which dictated the terms of peace. It is conceivable that the governments of these two nations viewed the situation in Russia and Poland from varying standpoints, but not in such a way as to lead to any serious misunderstanding. There exists no pact between them to take joint action, except as regards protecting France from Germany. Although it is most undesirable that they should act independently with respect to the policy to be pursued in Russian affairs, they were each entitled to freedom of action provided it was understood that the principles of the League of Nations were not infringed, or that neither France nor Britain should involve one another in having to undertake military operations. In considering the action of France with regard to Russia, it is necessary to bear in mind that the French are financially interested in Russia to the extent of £2,800,000,000, and it is the magnitude of the amount that impels the French to do all in their power to safeguard the investments. -It may be urged that monetary considerations should not be allowed to affect international poiiev, but money largely rules the world. Britain regards this Russian and Polish question from quite a different aspect—the possibility of being involved in military operations which must be avoided. Mr. Lloyd George is not the kind of statesman to adopt a bellicose policy, and he pins his faith on a peaceful settlement through the medium of trade. He has on more than one occasion stated that peace cannot be assured until Russian troubles are adjusted, and there is no doubt that the people of Britain are averse to applying armed force as a means to that end. The Soviet rulers of Russia are not easy to deal with, yet that is not to say the task of negotiating a settlement as regards Poland is impossible. France has acted somewhat impetuously, but there eannot be said to be any danger to Anglo-French relations in consequence of her action. Whatever the effect of that action may be it in no way commits Britain, so there is no justification for exaggerating the consequences. That the French authorities committed an error of judgment may be admitted, and the fact that the policy they favor is partially the same as President Wilson's does not strengthen their case, because America's policy at present is to remain aloof from outside troubles. Meanwhile the Poles are putting up a desperate resistance and may be profiting by the help of French officers. Britain is pledged to maintain Polish independence, and the need for that independence is daily becoming more emphatic. The situation is one that may well cause anxiety, as there is a possibility of the peace settlement being affected. Had the League of Nations become a reality it is probable the trouble would have been arranged before this. A war-weary world- is in no humor for armed hostilities, hence the striving by Britain for a peaceful settlement. Whatever happens there need be no fear that France and Britain will weaken their alliance, the existence of* which is in the best interests of the freedom and independence of the nations.