The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1922. THE REPARATIONS PROBLEM

Taranaki Daily News, 11 January 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1922. THE REPARATIONS PROBLEM

No surprise can be felt at the outburst of hostile comment in France over the decision of the Supreme Council, which is now sitting at Cannes, to invite Germany, as well as Russia, to participate in a Five-Power Conference, whereat the whole economic position of Europe should ( be considered. In bringing forward this startling proposal, Mr. Lloyd George contended that it was the duty of the Allies to bring about peace and restore the markets of Central Europe. It may be fairly claimed that it required exceptional courage on the part of the British Premier to. advocate, on the gnound of prudence, a policy of leniency and forbearance towards Germany. His speech, as reported in Monday’s issue, indicates in ever}- phrase the difficult and extremely delicate nature of the invidious task he undertook in appealing for moderation and restraint “when it is proposed to impose penalties on Germany (at whose hands the Allies suffered so intensely and without cause) for non-fulfilment of her obligations.” Apparently, the general view in France is that Germany ought to be made to pay first, and the organisation of her prosperity could be discussed later. There can be no doubt that the French attitude as thus expressed contains strict justice, and it accords with the expressed determination which the Allies have hitherto consistently held to make Germany pay. It has been proved that' she can pay, but has been making persistent excuses and evasions, besides scheming to utilise in other directions the gold that should have been paid to or reserved for discharging her reparations obligations. It will be noticed that Mr. Lloyd George argued the ease for moderation mainly from a legal point of view, although he skilfully interwove economic considerations into his speech, and justified his policy by the contention that “when Britain, through her representatives, puts in a plea for not rushing Germany into anarchy and bankruptcy, we are not doing that in the of Germany, but in the interests of the world.” This contention is one that sound-, well, but it cannot be claimed as convincing; it merely shows that the British Premier is ruled rather by softness of his heart than by the sturdiness of his intellect. He admits that Germany must pay—but not now. Why? Merely because she should not be forced into the same position as regards anarchy as in.the case of Russia, as to which there is not the slightest fear. The truth is that, although France is prepared to proceed to extremities, and would not for a moment hesitate to do so, soft-hearted Britain shrinks from enforcing the compulsory provisions of the peace terms—and Germany is well aware of this reluctance. As to the bogey of anarchy in Germany, there is nothing in the contention. There is a far greater danger of an upheaval in France if the Germans are to be. let off lightly while the French people have to prolong their sufferings, which payment of the reparations money would alleviate. It is all very well for Mr. Lloyd George to talk about “clean hands,” .and there being “no advantage if you shake hands with infamy in the East, and refuse to do so with infamy in the North.” The shaking hands business usually takes place after a settlement, ft. is the stern necessity of justice that matters. Germany was given a. reasonable time to pay her instalments, and it was her duty to meet them honorably Rnd punctually. We are quite aware that trade' is a factor in enabling her to pav, and it is admitted that the aaneral esaditieii ®£ Eurooe has

not been favorable in this respect. Yet it cannot be forgotten that while the people of the British Empire have, as the result of the war, been compelled to bear a crushing burden of taxation, the people of Germany, and the wealth of that country, have escaped this heavy toll, and used every effort to evade hardship. If the speech made by Mr. Lloyd George at the Supreme Council had emanated from the President of the United States it would certainly have been more fitting, though it would have been severely criticised throughout the Empire. It would seem that the price Britain and the Empire is to pay for a policy of moderation to Germany is a guarantee of armed help to France if that nation is attacked. It is somewhat curious that now Bolshevism has proved a complete failure, its dangers should be emphasised as a reason for saving Germany. While everyone recognises the value of prudence, there are limits even to that desirable quality, but it would seem that Mr. Lloyd George values prudence higher than justice. The danger is that Germany may be emboldened to defy the Allies to the utmost now that she finds they are averse to insisting on their rights. So far there is not the slightest sign of a repentant Germany, only a disposition to offer the other cheek to the smiter. How will it end?