The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1922. FRANCE AND BRITAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 February 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1922. FRANCE AND BRITAIN.

That France is still suspicious of British bona tides is shown by the recent comments of her leading newspapers and by her attitude towards the Genoa Economic Conference, which she desires postponed for three months, so as to give an opportunity for the participating Powers to reach an agreement on fundamental principles before discussion opens. The British Cabinet, on the other hand, sees no good reason for the delay, and believes that the economic rehabilitation of Europe can only come by the various Powers conferring together and putting their cards on the table. It is clear, however, that little progress will be made at the Genoa Conference, if it is held as originally arranged, unless France is represented and takes her full share of economic reconstruction. All Europe is inter-dependent, a fact which has been fully proved since the Armistice, and whilst a member of it is sick the rest of the nations must suffer. Of course all are more or less sick just now, but Russia and Austria are almost at death’s door and can only be saved by the other countries extending to them assistance in some form or other. To recover themselves England and France must first help to put Russia and Austria on their feet. France has no love for the Bolshevik Government of Russia, and has always been unwilling to recognise Lenin and his satellites. In the recent Note on the Genoa Conference., M. Poincare shows his usual distrust of the Soviet Government, whilst Mr. Lloyd George goes out of his way to welcome the co-oper-ation of the Russians. This divergence in the views and aims of the French and British Governments on this and other important matters of policy is greatly to be deplored. Both countries have much to lose and nothing materially to gain by pursuing different courses. Unity brought success to the Allies in the recent war; a continuance of divided counsels and commands must have resulted in disaster. France suffered frightfully in the war, and she feels that Britain has not given her adequate backing in the settlement of reparation terms with Germany. She has been smarting under this fancied injustice ever since. Hence her extraordinary 1 ehaviour in arranging a treaty with the Turkish Nationalist Party, a treaty diametrically opposed to British interests and policy. Also her unreasonable attitude over the submarine question at. the Washington Conference. Practically at every point France is opposing Britain, and incidentally proving a disturbing factor in the world’s rehabilitation. Can nothing be done to bring France to reason and work again in harmony and. co-opera-tion with Britain? It is a question that is engaging the attention of the leading minds of England. General Seely, formerly a member of the British Cabinet, should take the first step in this desirable -direction. He proposes that Britain should first of all undertake to guarantee France against Geiman aggression, which was not, it will be remembered, carried through after the Armistice because it was. contingent upon a corresponding treaty being signed by America. For reasons which are well known, America did not sign her Treaty. The original wish of France was that she should be given the Rhine as a frontier, for there is no such effective barrier under the conditions of modern war as a river, even a small one. Military experts in France advised that France should insist upon that frontier, but the representatives 1 of other countries were naturally : conscious of the continual unrest ■ that would be caused by the in- . elusion of a non-Freneh popula- ; tion in France, and in the face oi i this strong feeling France gave way. France nevertheless wanted security as much as ever; as she could not get it in one way she wanted to get it in another. In the end Britain and America promised to guarantee France against Germanv. The treaties, however, were drafted in such a way that it. was implied if one were not satisfied the other need not be. Gen-

eral Seely’s argument is that w r e should, as soon as possible, sign the Treaty, whether America signs hers or not. He says that French people regard our failure as a distinct breach of faith, and that all suspicion would be instantly removed if the course he proposes were adopted. It is obvious enough, that if France were ever attacked by Germany, Britain would be bound to go to her assistance, for we could never allow a victorious Germany in France, menacing as she would the whole of the English Channel and using tile coast, as a has? for aerial attacks upon Eng ..nd. Neither could America allow the peace of the world to be broken again by German aggression, and would take sides with France. But the French do not see the matter in the same light, and desire somehing more concrete. Britain, on the other hand, does not like entangling treaties, but there is reason to believe that had Germany known definitely in 1914 that Britain would stand beside France in ease of attack there would have been no Great War. If the signing of a definite Treaty giving this guarantee would bring France and Britain closely together again, and keep them together, then clearly it would be good policy to do so, for everything in Europe depends upon France and England remaining iclose friends and pursuing the same course in all matters affecting the welfare of Europe.