THE CONFERENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1921, Page 5

THE CONFERENCE

PROBLEMS OF PACIFIC, ALLIANCE WITH JAPAN. NEW ZEALAND’S APPROVAL. THE CHINESE QUESTION. (From the Special Representative of the Australian Press Assn.) Received Nov. 24, 7.25 p.m. Washington, Nov. 23. It was the turn of Sir John Salmond (the New Zealand delegate) to withstand a batten- of American questioning to-day. The usual queries regarding the Japanese Alliance were put to him, and immediately be reiterated the statement of Mr. G. F. Pearce (Australia), that New Zealand regarded Japan as a loyal ally, and felt that the alliance should not be abrogated unless something better were substituted. New Zealand would welcome a general understanding between the nations concerned for peace in the Pacific. Sir John. Salmond dealt with a multiplicity of questions put with ready skill. i It is semi officially explained that the “open door” means equal opportunity for all in foreign enterprise and such development schemes as China may throw open to foreign enterprise. The same tariff will be applied to goods of all nations entering China by land or sea, and the internal likin tax will be abolished. The arrangement, to which the Far Eastern Committee agreed, implies China’s acceptance of the financial and railways consortium. The existing railway concession will be pooled, with equal treatment to traders and passengers of all nations, and the appointment of a railway tribunal to examine complaints. CHINA AND REVENUE. The Far Eastern Committee discussed the Chinese customs revenue. Mr. Koo (China) made a long explanation, emphasising that China did not desire to interfere with the present administration of maritime customs or with the devotion of the proceeds of customs revenue to the liquidation of foreign loans. He reviewed historically the circumstances regarding the imposition of the tariff since 1842, with a view to showing that the increased price of commodities rendered justifiable the revision of the tariff.

i The present financial conditions of the Chinese Government required immediate , relief. Mr. Koo contended that the exist- ' ing customs regime in China constituted an infringement of Chinese sovereign rights ’ to fix tariff rates at her discretion; secondly, it deprived China of power to make 1 reciprocity arrangements with foreign powers; thirdly, China’s economic development would be seriously impeded; fourthly, a uniform rate without differentiation did ’ not take into account the economic needs of the Chinese people; and fifthly, a serious loss of revenue would be occasioned through a comparatively insignificant return from the present tariff. After a general discussion the subject was transferred to the sub-committee which was appointed yesterday under the chairmanship of Senator Underwood. ARMAMENT PROBLEM The Limitation of Armament Committee, after a general discussion this morning relating to land armament and new agencies of warfare, appointed and instructed a sub-committee consisting of the heads of the delegations to draw up procedure dealing with these subjects, and empowered the sub-committee to appoint sub-committees to deal with poison gas, aircraft and rules of international law. Naval experts to-day intimated that it would be fully a month before the immense mass of details arising under Mr. Hughes’ scheme would be worked out and ready for presentation to the committee, although the main general principles will possibly be laid down in a few days. Lord Beatty leaves Washington to-day. Though the British delegation suggests that his departure has no significance, it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that naval matters are going on well. Sir Robert Borden, representing the British Empire, unofficially stated that the United States will not allow a discussion on European debts. SECURITY OF FRANCE. AMERICAN PRESS VIEWS. London. Nov. 23. The correspondent at Washington says that the American feeling in regard to the speeches of M. Briand and Mr. Balfour is reflected in to-day’s leading articles. The Philadelphia says: “The security of France is uncertain so long as the spirit of Germany remains mixed and tinctured with the things of to-day. The peace of Europe will not be secured till Germany can put revenge out of her heart. America, though she may help, cannot pledge that help.” The New York Times says: “'France must attend to her own security. Americans ought not to say nay, unless they are prepared to come forward with a sound alternative plan, or unless they have the face to deny that America in the same position as France would do exactly what she is doing.” The Tribune declares: “M. Briand’s noble vindication of the morality of France is not only intellectually convincing and stirs deep emotion, but there is a sense of shame in thinking of forcing France, with her shining record, to defend herself against aspersion.”

The New York World says: “France‘s offer of military reductions is an example of both moral and material disarmament.” The New York American considers M. Briand's speech a real page in the world’s history. Mr. Hughes’ motherly love speech that startled the conference was a pretty fairy- story. The world knows from M. Briand that France will not disarm. She means to rely on force. Those who like may limp. On that score France will hear some plain and savage talk from Italy, and less savage. but as plain, from England. FRENCH PRESS APPROVAL. Paris, Nov. 23. The Press unreservedly approves M. Briand’s speech. The Petit Parisien says the declarations of friendship and support of all our allies, particularly that of Mr. Balfour, must have shown the most excited PanGermans that they cannot count on the moral isolation of France. The Journal says M. Briand’s success demonstrated to the universe the necessity for a strong France to ensure jeace.—