EUROPE’S FATE.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 August 1922, Page 5

EUROPE’S FATE.

WAR DEBTS PROBLEM. SETTLING GERMANY. ESSENTIALS TO PEACE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. London, August 9. A iscount Grey, speaking at Oxford, said whether Europe would be restored to prosperity depended largely on the result of the London Conference. There were two things we must do. We must pay the American debt and keep it an entirely separate question from the Allied debts, and must use our credit position in Europe in the most generous way to en< a settlement. Lord Balfour’s Note Jd not keep the questions separate. It conveyed the impression that we adopted an attitude of contingent generosity. The Govern*" nt had a chance to do a big thing and it had chosen to do a little thing. The Note was the cause of a good deal of political friction and made the prospect of a settlement more remote. It was essential that German reparations should be reduced to a practicable amount. France had experienced the full agony of the war. but the complete collapse of Europe would be the greatest sacrifice France could make. There were four essentials to a European settlement: Firstly, a reduction of reparations to a manageable and practicable amount; secondly, the granting of a moratorium to Germny of adequate duration; thirdly, what possible must be done to put Germany on her feet; fourthly, provided Germany, after o rearrangement. fulfils the treaty obligations she should be admitted to the League of Nations. Speaking generally, the policy of splendid isolation was no longer possible. BRITISH PRESS OPINION. The Daily News »aya the diplomatic conference is faced by three possibilities; firstly, a comprehensive settlement; secondly, a deadlock or breakdown: thirdly, a compromise sufficient to carry the discussions past the date Mr the next German payment on August 15 to a later and new conference.

The first is impossible, the third remains possible, if the experts and the Prime Ministers are ready to accept enough of M. Poincare’ scheme to save its author’s face. This is extremely doubtful; whether it is desirable is even more questionable. •

M. Poincare’s scheme is not one of reconstruction, but one of disintegration. It concentrates attention on the sanctions, when all the concentration should be on reconstruction. It is a reversion to M. Millerand’s Spa proposal of July, 1920. M. Poincare’s proposals, in addition to those cabled yesterday, are that taxes leviable in the occupied area be paid direct to the Allies, the cession to the Allies of German State property, instancing the forests and mines, the Allies to take a 60 per cent, share in the dye factories and participate in other industries. The Daily Chronicle comments; It is reported from a French source that the committee estimated that M. Poincare’s scheme was likely to produce 300 to 400 million gold marks, which is small in comparison to Germany’s obligations. The opinion of British representatives is that it would yield but poorly compared with the likelihood of ultimately disorganising Germany’s economic life. It is learned from a French source that the committee of experts has decided to recommend that the 26 per cent, tax on German exports be collected directly by the Reparations Commission instead of Germany paying an equivalent round sum as now. FRENCH DISSATISFACTION. BITTER PRESS COMMENTS. Received August 10. 5.5 p.m. Paris. August 9. The newspapers assert that all France is behind M. Poincare and they express dissatisfaction with London developments. The Figaro says: "France does not want to pay for Britain’s mistakes or the Germans’ crimes. Mr. Lloyd George thinks he is protecting the peace of Europe against us but. in reality, he is protecting Germany, not peace.” L’Eclair remarks: “The Allies show towards Germany scrupulous consideration which they deny to their old ally France.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn

FRENCH SUGGESTIONS. DISAPPROVED BY EXPERTS. London, August 9. It is understood the opinion of the majority of the committee of experts is sc sin st the French proposal for the establishment of a Customs barrier and the imnosition of taxation in the occupied area. The proposal to seize mines and forests was also rejected, but the committee will be invited to consider a system of guarantees ensuring the supply of coal and wood for the Allies. The proposal to ask Ger many to agree to a share in industrial concerns being given to the Allies was likewise reiected. The committee generally favored Signor Schemer's view. There was a contradiction between granting a moratorium and taking German property. It also held that these steps were unnecessary in view of the guarantees lately imposed by the committee on guarantees. It was felt necessary not merelv to look at some of these matters from the financial standpoint, but to take account of their political and moral effects. A French source states that Mr. Lloyd George, at a meeting with M. Poincare and M. Theunis, agreed to the following French proposals: Firstly, the Renarations Commission to directly collect 26 per cent, on the sums received by Germany in foreign ourrency or on German exports, which is estimated to yield 1250 million gold marks: secondly, the seizure of the German Customs receipts, estimated at 300 million gold marks: thirdly, the control of State mines in the Ruhr and the forests on the left bank of the Rhine, but the British Government was strenuously opposing the proposal to re-establish a Customs barrier round the Ruhr, in connection with which M. Poincare is unbending.