BRITAIN’S PART AT GENEVA.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 25 March 1926, Page 7

BRITAIN’S PART AT GENEVA.

Return Of Foreign Minister COOLLY FACES HOSTILE FORCES. By Osblo —Press Association —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cabio Association. LONDON, March 23. The Foreign Minister, Sir Austen Chamberlain, wore a stern expression on entering a crowded, expectant House of Commons. He did not relax in response to the Ministerialist cheers. Mr Lloyd George initiated a debate, moving a reduction of the Foreign Office vote to call attention to the proceedings at Geneva, and the action of the British representative there. He regretted that Sir A. Chamberlain had not seen fit to take the floor first as lie did offer Locarno, and explain how Locarno was checked at Geneva. He declared that tlie Locarno Rowers were responsible for the Geneva failure. The peace of the world hung oil the action which the House of Commons took, and directed the Government to take in future events at Geneva, and had undoubtedly antogonised the United States to tlie League. Sweden who took the light and courageous course at Geneva, represented the public opinion of Britain also. Yet the Swedish delegate (Dr Undcn) was treated as a stubborn, irrecoiiciiiable pro-German, though he had done more to save the League than any other one man.

Mr Lloyd George Trounced. Sir Austen Chamberlain (Foreign Minister) following Lloyd George, said he wished to pay a debt pressing on him strongly. He said as the Assembly was meeting .simultaneously with the Council, there were representatives of tlie Dominions and India at Geneva, and he was in closest touch and consultation with them. The whole seven nations met almost daily in his room. Confidential comniumcations passed more than once daily, lie desired to express bis debt to them for their sympathy and support in one of the most difficult, or the most difficult task it lias ever been his lot to confront. He categorically denied that when bo interviewed M. Briand on his return from Italy, lie entered into any engagement regarding Poland\s claims, or anything else. Neither had lie instigated or encouraged M. Briand to press Poland’s claim. Sir Austen Chamberlain went oil to say that Mr Lloyd George professed to come to the Houso as an open-minded distressed inquirer, but he did not wait even Sir Austen’s arrival from Geneva before.he telegraphed the American press his condemnation of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s action, and liis suspicion of Sir Austen’s honour. “ Most Lamentable Failure.” Mr Ramsay Macdonald (Leader of the Opposition) declared that Sir Austen Chamberlain's attitude resulted in the most lamentable failure ill British diplomacy for many years. Britain got mixed up in diplomacy which was hostile to the League. He bad left the League in confusion and sadness, while the cynicism now abroad in Europe was such as had not been known since tbe war. Nothing Harmful to Peace. Lord Hugh Cecil said there was nothing in the events at Genova, which were harmful to peace. He declared ■ that Sir, Austen Chamberlain; had answered critics with manly and convincing candour. Foreign Minister's Statement. Mr Lloyd George said they were entitled to ask whether Sir Austen Chamberlain knew beforehand that France and Poland bad intended to insist on the simultaneous entry of Poland to League with Oeriiiiinv. lie declared that instead of using their influence to secure the admission of Germany alone, tbe .Locarno Treaty Powers intrigued and oven’ threatened in order to get somebody else in. Sir Austen Chamberlain said it was strange that a charge of disloyalty against Germany was laid by a compatriot and not by the Gormans themselves. As regards ihe feeling in America, Mr Lloyd George burl done bis share hv his article insinuating what ho dar/*l not say in the House to-day. The instructions with which lie went to Geneva were, subject to his discretion, to make the Lest arrangements possible in accordance with the development of the situation. British policy should bo based on principles :

(1) That no change in the Council should be made, whieh would have the effect of or delaying the entry of Germany; (2) It would be best that, Germany .should, a.s a member of the Council, have full responsibility for any furlher change in the Council beyond her own admission ; (3) The rule that -inly Great Towers should be permanent members of the Council should be maintained in principle ; (4) Spain was in a special position, and might require exceptional treatment; (5) Neither Poland nor Brazil should have a permanent seat at present, but that Poland should be given a 11011permanent seat as soon as possible.

Denial of intrigue. Sir Austen Chamberlain said he acted accordingly. He declared that, no pressure of any kind was put oil Sweden to act as she did. lie declared the public discussions throughout the world made Germany’s position impossible. Sir Austen Chamberlain intimated that if to-night’s vote was adverse lie would resign. He did his best to persuade other nations not to raise the question of tlie enlargement of the Council at pre.sont. He urged them to get Germany into the League and not complicate tlie discussion by introducing other issues. He emphasised that the League was an association i f equal relationships. If any British representative attempted to dictate its policy, he would have the reprobation of the whole League as his guerdon. Britain’s part was her accustomed part—that of moderator and conciliator. He stated that Brazil contended that she had notified Germany of her intention to claim a permanent seat. Il'c was of opinion that Brazil was out to put Germany on her guard. France ami Britain had laid it down that Germany's request for admission in the 'League should he unconditional. He declared there was no ground for a. charge of bad faith against anyone, but there was misunderstanding. It had never been hinted at Locarno that Germany attached any importance to her being the sole entrant of the League. He next emphasised the difficulties caused b.v the publicity given the Polish claim by arousing national feeling in each country. He added that unless in the future, nations who are members of the League, especially members of the Council, were prepared to attain their ends without making a positivo stand publicly, the League could not work, and its whole purpose would be destroyed. Britain's Good Faith. Sir Austen Chamberlain explained that lie had informed all parties concerned before the discussions at Geneva of the exact attitude of tlie British Government.. For example he told the Spanish Ambassador that if the candidature of Spain would impede (he entry of Germany, ho would vote against Spain. The Minister concluded by claiming that the Locarno accord had withstood

a great strain at Geneva. The spirit of Locarno persisted, and inspired the policy of seven nations who had signed the Treaty. The influence of Britain stood higher than at any time since the war. While he had been the spokesman of his country in foreign relations, nobody with whom lie had dealt in that capacity, questioned the honesty of British policy or doubted Britain’s good faith or licr word. Mr Lloyd George’s motion was rejected by 321 to 136. LONDON PRESS COMMENT. FOLLOWS PARTY LINES. By Cable —Press Association —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received March 24, 7.55 P-m.) LONDON, March 24. Comment on the Geneva debate mainly follows party lines. “Tlie Times” regrets that Sir Austen Chamberlain did not permit himself a similar freedom and directness ol speech before the Conference. , Times” adds that it remains true that some of tlie worst troubles at Geneva, and most vexatious and misapprehensions in foreign countries, might nave been avoided if the British position had been more clearly indicated at the proper time. _. . The “Daily Mail” says Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech shows that ho did well at Geneva to preserve the Locarno spirit, despite mischievous difficulties efeated by enthusiastic busy bodies, seeking to make enemies ot old friends. '

LABOUR VIEW OF DEADLOCK. MR BALDWIN EXPRESSES CABINET’S CONFIDENCE. By Cable —Press Association —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Araociation. (Received March 24. 11.40 p.m.) LONDON, March 24. In the House of Commons, during the Genoa debate, Mr Thomas (Labour), said the Opposition were suspicious that Britain had been committed in advance. They joined issue with the Government on the ground that a serious blow had been struck at the League’s prestige. He declared that if the League failed, tho workers would forge another instrument to take its place, an instrument that would bring ajiout international peace. Mr Thomas added that Sir Austen Chamberlain had had one chance and missed it. The House of Commons tried to give him another, but he had not taken it. They refused to give him a third. Mr Baldwin, in the .course of his reply, said the new Commission would confront the new situation free of all engagements of any kind, and consider the future composition of the Council, and Germany had been invited to take a seat on equal terms with equal rights of speech and voting on the Commission. Mr Baldwin expressed the Cabinet’s confidence in Sir Austen Chamberlain, who had come through difficult, trying times, having done his best in the circumstances. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in a few months, would bring to fruition, the efforts in which he had been so long engaged.

CHALLENGE IN GERMAN REICHSTAG. NATIONALIST MOVE DEFEATED. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association, BERLIN, March 23. The Reichstag by 259 to 141 rejected the German National Party’s motion of no confidence in tile Government, including a demand that Germany shall withdraw the application for admission to the League of Nations, and adopted the Government parties’ motion approving of tlie attitude of the German delegation at Geneva regretting that the outcome of the Geneva negotiations did not correspond with justifiable German expectations, and dec4aring that tho Reichstag expects the Government wiil speedily obtain guarantees that the promises made at Locarno, especially as regards tlie occupied regions, ohall be fulfilled ns soon as possible, m accordance with Germany's just demands, and thus make effective before Germany's entry into the League, the agreement readied at Geneva, with regard to the maintenance and continuance of the Locarno policy.

Admiral Tirpitz made his maiden speech in tho Reidistag. lie was constantly heckled by the Leftists, especially when he declared that Germany must withdraw her application for entrance to the League of Nations; “otherwise the trumps will remain in the hands of our adversaries.”

Continuing he said: “We should not play with open cards. Everyone knew that Dr. Stressemaun and Dr Luther entered the trap at Genova. If their policy was continued Germany would become a dependency of France. It ivas imperative that Germany should follow tho lead of the United States towards the League.” Dr Luther vigorously replied. He declared that the United States opinion was swinging towards Germany. If Germany withdrew her application her policy would stink in the nostrils of the world.

WHY GENEVA FAILED. BANKRUPTCY OF OLD DIPLOMACY. By Cable —Press Association —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, March 23. Tbe “Times” Geneva correspondent says the discussions at Geneva failed, because they were a clash between traditional diplomacy and the League machinery. Diphinacy is normally slow, but rapidity is essential at League meetings, causing terrific intensity ot negotiations bei.wces 50 nations, necessitating six days’ work by the old methods, being done in one._ )et its ramifications are endless. The trail could bo traced to the Far East, and South America, with a maze of side tracks, resulting ill issues too great to be settled within ten days. Probably Sir A. Chamberlain erred throughout the first week in negotiating solely with the Loenrnoites. Among those excluded was M. Mellolrnnco who may have resented it, resulting in the eventual stubbornness of others, including Spain, which also objected to Sir A. Chamberlain's methods. M. Briand persuaded Germany to accept the Swedish and Czecho-Slovak-ian offers, but the ship he steered, laden with paraphernalia of tho old diplomacy, crashed into the League’s hull, resulting in both being damaged, disclosing the old barque’s dodge, threats and hidden motives. Tho League should not be blamed tor tho unsavoury business, because it revealed the badness of the old diplomacy. Jt also proved that even when within the League of Nations a country cannot be forced to accept a policy of which it disapproves.