The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1922. FRENCH CHAUVINISM.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 January 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1922. FRENCH CHAUVINISM.

Now that M. Poincare has become the responsible head of the French Government, he is faced with those extreme opinions which he so freely expressed during M. Briand’s tenure of the Premiership. That he is animated by an intense Chauvinism is beyond question, and as that “unreflecting and fanatical devotion” constitutes an exaggerated patriotism, he can only see “red” where Germany is concerned. It can, therefore, be readily conceived that the venomous personal hate, which has found expression in the comments made by the German Press upon M. Poincare’s policy, is not unexpected, and the fear is that his policy may, as the Deutsche Allegmeine Zeitung pointedly states, “hurl France into terrible misfortunes, if he cannot control his feelings.” M. Poincare not only desires, and is striving for, an alteration in the Anglo-French Paet, in the direction of making the British guarantee of military aid cover Germari aggression on the left bank of the Rhine, but also that the completion of the Paet shall follow, and not precede, the settlement of all questions pending between France and Britain, such as Angora. In his recent pronouncement of policy, made in the French Chamber, M, Poincare, while ostensibly diplomatic in his language, could not conceal his Chaiivinism towards Germany. He demands that Germany shall pay in full according to her obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and insists that the conditions laid down in the Cannes protocol shall either be accepted or rejected ,by the delegates to the Genoa Economical Conference before the stipulations of the Treaty can even be indirectly interfered with at Genoa. Besides this, he claims: “We must also arrange with Italy and England so as to prevent a resumption of hostilities between the Turks and the Greeks,” thereby indicating that the question of the Angora Paet must be treated as a matter of urgency Whatever justice may be on the side of these French claims. France cannot be allowed to dictate to the Allies. What M. Poincare calls firmness is really autocratic obstinacy, although he intimates his desire to use only “language of moderation in frank friendship.” Yet in the same breath he asserts that the Supreme Council can no longer be the sole instrument for the interpretation or modification of the Versailles or oil treaties, adding that France can make no concession regarding . reparations. Apparently M. Poincare, while anxious to obtain Britain’s active support, plainly intimates that France will act as she deems best, irrespective of that support, even to taking military measures to support her demands. According to the Paris correspondent of the London Daily Chronicle, M. Pomcare asked Mr. Lloyd George to convert the proposed AngloFrench Paet into a military alliance for the execution of the Versailles Treaty, but the British Prerffier replied firmly t,hat no British Government could go beyond the Cannes proposals. Britain, as representing the whole Empire, is just as determined as France that Germany must pay, the only question being whether, in the interests of the whole of Europe, the economic position can best be served by devising a

scheme that, while, ensuring full payment, in money or kind, will tide over the present depression and lead to financial rehabilitation. It is for the consideration of that problem that the Genoa Conference has been instituted. Referring to that gathering in the course of his speech at the recent Coalition Liberal rally, Mr. Lloyd George said: “The thousand experts who will attend at Genoa will be cheaper than military experts, whose last conference in Europe left ten millioh dead on the debating ground.” It is that point of view which M. Poincare will not recognise. The one urgent problem on which it is imperative that all statesmen shall concentrate is the establishment of a real and permanent peace, yet M. Poincare’s Chauvinism is one of the greatest and most dangerous menaces to peace, hence the need for the utmost firmness on the part of Britain in refusing to comply with French demands that would probably end in a resumption of hostilities. France has suffered heavily and is sore, but that should be a strong incentive to a pacific policy. Whatever pressure may be needed to be exerted on Germany can be effectively applied by the Allies without resorting to armed force. The terms of the Anglo-French Paet, 1 as arranged at Cannes, are amply . sufficient to protect France and , her interests, so that if M. Poincare insists on his autocratic policy, France will rue the day when M. Briahd left the helm.