FATE OF RUSSIA.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 May 1922, Page 5

FATE OF RUSSIA.

WILL THE POWERS HELP? BRITAIN GIVES LEAD. PRACTICAL PROPOSALS. FRANCE STANDS ASIDE. By Telegraph.—Preaa Asan.—Copyright. Received May 14, 5.5 p.m. Genoa, May 13. The first commission had a long and serious debate on the Russian reply. Mr. Lloyd George said the Russian answer was provoking and unsatisfactory, and typical of the diplomacy which was always introduced in argumentative documents at times when they were really trying to do business. However, in its substance there was room to come to some arrangement. Everyone had differences with public opinion, and it was not right for other statesmen to criticise them too severely.

To break on the document would be very serious for Europe and Asia, he added. If we sent the Russians back to their great population, in the grip of famine and pestilence, they would feel the door of hope shut on them with a clang, and no one could doubt the fierce resentment which would ensue, and which would be a menace not only to Russia, tut to the peace of the world. He was certain the Russians felt the need of credits and new conditions on which they could be obtained. He begged people to regard the position from a practical standpoint and not make the most of the clash of principle between two antagonistic systems. A TRUCE PROPOSED. He therefore proposed they should, in reply to the Russians, accept the suggested mixed commission or commissions, which would deal with the three questions of private property, debts and credits. It was essential the commissions should be mixed; another meeting of the experts would be a waste of time. One thing, however, was essential, and that was the commissions could not work in an atmosphere of menace end semi-hostility while armies were threatening the frontiers and propaganda was rife. He thus proposed a truce on a basis of de facto frontiers, with the cessation of propaganda on evervone s part. Finally, he proposed that a sharp Note should be sent in reply to Russia’s Note, which needed an answer.

M. Barthou (France) said that, acting on instructions from Paris, he was unable to discuss the reply to a document which they had not joined in sending. Speaking on Mr. Lloyd George’s proposals, he said, with regard to the suggested commissions, that the conference had. been discussing for five weeks the questions which these commissions were to investigate, without making progress. The Russian reply disowned the Cannes conditions. The French delegation had done what it could to reach a decision, and he did not think commissions could achieve any result. It simply meant starting the Genoa Conference over again in another form. He reserved the right to consider whether the commission, if not appointed by tne conference, might not later be appointed by the Governments, always provided that the Russians were not represented on these commissicns, which should be confined to the Allies and neutrals. Perhaps America and France could not accept Russian representation. He saw a grave menace in the proposed truce, inasmuch as propaganda would continue.

OTHER POWERS’ VIEWS. Signor Schanzer (Italy) said he was not prepared to take the responsibility of saying the Powers should abandon their efforts at peace after only five weeks’ work. They should not refuse Mr. Lloyd George’s practical proposals. The danger of rupture was very great, and the gravest of all was the parting on the Note by disunion on what was after all a matter of procedure in regard to the goal they wished to attain. It would be a terrible disillusionment if the conference broke on a flimsy issue like this, and he appealed to M. Barthou to reconsider hie view. Mr. Lloyd George said they should agree now upon the place end date of the meeting of the Russian Commission. He emphasised the great importance of cowing to an agreement at Genoa, because it was obvious that if the Powers started making separate agreements great troubles might arise. The Polish delegate said Poland had a separate agreement with Russia, but was anxious to have a general agreement.

M. Jasper (Belgium) said Belgium also wanted a settlement at Genoa and he would be sorry if Belgium came to be regarded as interfering with it. Signor Schanzer said Italy already bad a commercial agreement with Russia, which was still unsigned. They should fix the period in which the commission should report. He suggested three months. The commission adjourned for a fe<v hours, to see whether better counsels would prevail.—•Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. ANGLO-FRENCH MEETING. A COMPROMISE LIKELY. VIEWS OF OTHER POWERS. Received May 14, 11.50 p.m. Genoa, May 14. When the sub-commission resumed it was announced that the conversations between Mr. Lloyd George and M. Barthou had progressed satisfactorily and a compromise is likely. They meet again to-morrow to continue the conversations. Representatives of the other Powers expressed opinions on the truce. Mr. Irhii (Japan) regarded the conference’s? work as much too important to be lightly abandoned; the whole world regarded an understanding as most important. He approved of the British proposals. Switzerland was enthusiastic over the truce proposals. M. Barthou said he hoped an agreement was in sight. He hoped they would settle the question whether the commission would be mixed or otherwise. On ihe question of a pact both England and France desired to learn the views of other countries.—Aus.-N.Z. Assn, j