FRENCH STAND

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 127, 11 March 1936, Page 5

FRENCH STAND

READY TO NEGOTIATE. STATEMENT OF A CONDITION. FAITH IN TREATY ESSENTIAL. SETTLEMENT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. FREE DISCUSSION NEEDED. United Press Association—Copyright! (Received This Day, 11.10 a.m.) PARIS, March 10. A crowded Chamber heard the Premier (M. Sarraut) defined the attitude of France to Germany. M. Sarraut declared that France was willing to leave the Rhineland issue to arbitration, but never accepted the substitution of the law of force or a fait accompli for international law. France had been always ready to listen to any proposal for the political or economic amelioration of Europe and had neglected no opportunity to better relations with Germany. '‘l am convinced,” said the Premier, “that if all the circumstances could be freely discussed, settlement could bo achieved on the lines of international law, without recourse to force.” M. Sarraut recalled the Saar, whero the problems of supreme difficulty had been solved without a single disorderly incident. “We believe the occupation of the demilitarised zone is a blow against our security,” he said. “The future peace of Europe and the League policy of collective security will be endangered if Germany’s action is allowed to stand. Any country will be able to tear up a treaty at will. We are ready to begin discussions with Germany, once respect for international law is again assured, but we cannot maintain the least faith in treaties if the strongest will suffices to destroy them. If this sort of thing is accepted it will mean a return to military alliances, superarmaments and war, begun by the strongest at the most favourable moment. “We are still ready to place our moral and material forces at the disposal of the League to prevent such a catastrophe, which would mean the end of European civilisation. We ask assistance from those Powers who formally signed the Rhinish pact and the League Covenant, and we solemnly declare that we will never attempt anything against the German peoples’ honour. We are willing to seek peace. France would like to know how the occupation of the Rhineland will help to solve these problems. Would Germany have confidence in France if she demanded a new treaty just because she had torn up the old one? France cannot negotiate under threat of violence and renunciation of freely-given signatures. For that reason she is appealing to the League and consulting with the signatories to the Locarno Pact. France remains ready to negotiate with Germany as soon as faith in treaties is restored.”

FIRMNESS OF ATTITUDE. NATION SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT AGGRESSION MUST BE STOPPED. (Received This Day, 9.55 a.m.) LONDON, -March 10. The conference of signatories to the Locarno Pact is being conducted in strictest secrecy. It is understood that the French representatives are taking the firmest line. Sir Geoffrey Clerk (British Ambassador) left the conference room to telephone to London, presumably for further instructions. The conference broke up at 1.3 p.m. and no decision was reached. There will be another meeting either to-night or at Geneva to-morrow. A communique declares that M. Flandin welcomed the delegates and said the object of the meeting was the exchange of information to define the situation. No resolution will be submitted, and no decision will be taken before the meeting of the League Council and delegates have explained their viewpoints with the procedure thus defined. The impression is general, after the conference, lhat the French Government is not budging from its firm stand, in which it is supported by the whole nation. It feels that the time has come to stop German aggression, and points out the inconsistency of Mr Eden’s logic, inasmuch as, while declaring that Germany’s action has profoundly shaken confidence in Germany’s word, he yet indicated that Britain was prepared tc negotiate.

BITTER FRENCH ATTACK. MR BALDWIN AND MR MACDONALD. REAL SOURCES OF COWARDICE. (Received This Day, 10.20 a.m.) - PARIS, March 10. “Pertinax,” in the “Echo de Paris, bitterly attacks Mr Baldwin and Mr MacDonald as the real sources of cowardice in the Government’s policy. British public opinion forced them to act in the case of Abyssinia, but they have relapsed into their natural apathy in the absence of further public pressure.