REPARATIONS PLANS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 89, 14 April 1923, Page 7

REPARATIONS PLANS.

Kl. POINCARE'S SCHEME. PRIORITY FOR FRANCE. [MEETING AMERICAN CLAIMS. (By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright.) (Received 9.30 a.m.) PARIS, April 13. The '•Matin - ' states that M. Poincaro is submitting to M. TTiennis, Premier of Belgium, ami M. Jaspar, Minister of Foreign Affair!?, a complete reparation plan linked with the Allied debts. He proposes to surrender to the I'nited States jn payment, of the inter-Allied debt part cf the eighty-two thousand million gold marks included under the German "C" bonds provided for under the London agreement of 1921, and also priority for French and German claims on the "A" end "B" bonds, leaving England a share of the "C" bonds. M. Poincare suggests that France and Belgium take a chief share of the forty thousand million gold marks cash, which Germany announces that she is willing to pay. These payments must be made -fl-ithln ten years. M. Poincare proposes that the payments be under three heads, the first to France, the second to Italy, Yugo-Slavia and Rumania, and the third to Belgium, and also that France and Belgium take the first forty thousand millions of the "A" and "B" bonds, England accepting payment of France's debt to her in German "C" bonds. Should the plan be adopted France would consent to the internationalisation of the Ruhr and the Rhine-land under a League of Nations commission. The "Matin" says that the plan is reinforced by approval from London, and is in accord with Belgian views. FOREIGN OFFICE DENIAL. (Received 2.50 p.m.) PARIS, April 13. The Foreign Office denies the "Matin's" itatement that the Government is submitting a reparation plan to a confersnee of Belgian Ministers. The eonfersnee will deal almost entirely with coal deliveries and taxes. If reparations be discussed it will only be a secondary -tatter. The whole purpose of the conference is to tighten up the organisation to break Germany's resistance. The French occupation of the Kuhr has so far failed to produce anything very tangible in the way of results for France, and It is evident from the "Matin's" message that alternatives are being sought. In explaining to the House of Commons recently why the French Government had rejected the British proposals with regard to a readjustment of the reparations burden — proposals which were based on granting Germany a moratorium for four years as regards reparation instalments—he said that tlie policy of invading the Ruhr had been decided upon some time ago by the French, and that no Government could hold office in France unless it adopted that policy. Those people in France who were confident that the invasion of the Ruhr, with its rich coal fields and its industrial wealth, would result in the payment of substantial sums in reparations, arid those who doubted whether any ihoney could be obtained by such a policy were in accord as to the wisdom of the policy of seizing the Ruhr, ln the words of Mr. Bonar Law: "The French would like to get reparations from Germany—the French system of budgeting is dependent on getting the money—but at the same time they are greatly afraid of a Germany strong enough to pay." This candid insinuation by £he British Prime Minister that French fear of German military aggression overrides French hopes of getting Germany to pay for the destruction she caused in the war has not pleased France. The French correction of the British Prime Minister's statement of the position is that France is not afraid of a Germany strong enough to pay reparations, but of a Germany strong enough to refuse to pay. The distinction between these two interpretations of the position illustrates the difference between the British and the French points of view with regard to reparations. To the British mind it seems essential that'

Germany should be given time to re- > cover to a position of financial and economic soundness before she can shoulder tbe burden of reparations. To the French mind it seems essential' that Germany should not be allowed to recover her former position in Europe, because in that case she would be strong tnougb to refuse to pay. As the invasion of the Ruhr has failed t« -produce the immediate results in the Way of reparations that the people of Irance were led to expect By their Statesmen and their newspapers, it is *»w being< admitted, even in France, that national security is more important than reparations, and that the real object of the invasion of the Ruhr is to guarantee the national security of "franco. France, with a population of 40,000,000, has to live side by side with -Germany, which has a population of »,000,000.. The various efforts that nance made while the Peace Treaty "*>s being drafted to get Great Britain and America to consent to steps which •Be regarded as essential to her future JWurity against German aggression failed, and therefore France has been thrown back on her own resources. ._ France has no intention of annexing -Me.Ruhr in the way Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine after the war of 1870. She realises the difficulties of attempting to absorb into the national ■Jife of France a new province inhabited ''.Jy.'a hostile people. But she does not Intend to evacuate the Ruhr without .adequate guarantees against future ■gfcression by Germany. And she claims jO*be within her rights under the Peace weaty in continuing to occupy the miar, even after Germany has paid the m?".,total of reparations provided for W4er the treaty. She bases this claim

ETtly on articles 42, 43 and 44 of the i s * a ]*- v ' "~*hich forbid Germany to erect fortifications or maintain armed forces ;jrithin 50 kilometres of the east bank W&jh the Rhine, but more on the final clauses of article 429, dealing with the •"acuation of German territory in tho "■Jnds of the Allied armies of occupation. «is article provides for the final evacuation of the occupied territory fifteen years "after the date of enforcement of j*e treaty, if, in the meantime, the con*t«>ns of the treaty have been faith™ly carried out by Germany; but it ••so stipulates—"lf" at that date the I against unprovoked aggression by Germany are not considered '•Uflicient by the Allied governments, the ;*??«<"nation of the occupying troops may to the extent regarded as for the purpose of obtaining «• required guarintees." (