A PROPOSAL FOR SUPERVISION

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21975, 26 December 1936, Page 11

A PROPOSAL FOR SUPERVISION

♦ PLAN TO IMPLEMENT NONINTERVENTION COMMITTEE’S APPEAL TO BOTH PARTIES RUSSIAN DELEGATE ATTACKS GENERAL FRANCO (BufITIHII OFFICIAL WIKEI.KSS.) (Received December 25, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, December 23. The Non-Intervention Committee met to-day. The following resolution was unanimously adopted:— “Dbeply impressed with the need for doing everything possible to limit the scope of the present war in Spain and prevent the development of conditions which might prejudice the good understanding and harmony of the peoples of Europe, and being convinced that the strict application of the non-intervention agreement is essential to these ends, the committee agrees that it is of the highest importance that a scheme of supervision designed to secure the application of the agreement should be brought into effective operation at the earliest possible date and have undertaken to request their Governments to furnish them with the necessary authority to secure this end.” The committee had before it a report prepared bv technical advisers dealing with technical aspects of the proposed scheme of supervision. Spanish Co-operation Members of the committee agreed to refer this report to their respective governments and authorised the chairman (Lord Plymouth) to communicate the terms of the scheme to the two parties in Spain early in January, unless before then any of the governments represented had asked that the question should be considered at a further meeting of the committee. It was further agreed that the communication io the two parties should contain a icqucst that they should furnish within 10 days of its receipt a reply on whether they were prepared to co-operate in the proposed scheme. The committee members also agreed to request their respective governments to notify the committee not later than January 4 whether they were prepared to contribute towards the cost of the proposed system of supervision in the proportions which had already been suggested to the committee. The committee had before it a further report by technical advisers of methods, by which a system of supervision over the entry into Spain of aircraft by air might be established. The committee members agreed to submit the report to their respective governments. Reply of Rebels What Signor Grand) (Italy) described as a “kind of recurrent fever” prompted M. Maisky (Russia) to launch * volley of contemptuous comments on General Franco’s reply to the Non-Interven-tion Committee’s suggestions for supervision. 1. Maisky, after declaring that the Spanish Government’s reply had properly emphasised the Government’s legitimacy and right to procure arms to suppress the revolt, said that General Franco, on the contrary, merely said he would continue to study the committee’s communi -ations. That reply was a compound of folly and insolence. M. Maisky added that in spite of the recent great deterioration in diplomatic manners there w'ere limits to endurable discourtesy and insolence. General Franco’s note overstepped them. Peace in Spain would be nearer peace and Europe would be less endangered if the committee took a I firmer stand vilh General Franco and his protectors. J LITTLE PROGRESS SEEN DISAPPOINTMENT WITH COMMUNIQUE REPLIES ON MEDIATION SAID TO BE NOT HELPFUL (BRITISH OrriCIAL WIRELESS.) RUGBY, December 24. Disappointment is expressed in the newspapers at the terms of the Non-Intervention Committee’s communique, which, it is said, shows little progress towards the establishment of an agreed system of international supervision over the Spanish frontiers and ports. Conditions, criticisms and reservations are attached by Germany, Italy, Portugal and Russia to the replies to the request of the French and British Governments that they would co-operate, in the first place, in ending foreign intervention and later in mediating between the parties to the Spanish conflict in order to obtain their consent to an armistice. The British and French proposals for the supervision of imports of arms, munitions and volunteers have been placed before the rival parties in Spain, but have been met at Burgos, the seat of the rebel administration, with a series of questions which the press regards as designed to waste time rather than to produce constructive replies. The Spanish Government’s reply, which accepts the proposals in principle but reserves the right to reject them either wholly or in part, is also regarded as not helpful. “The Times” says: “The replies of the Spanish rivals do not, however, matter nearly so much as the intentions of the three major powers, whose answer to the committee is now awaited,- If-the&prefei^to- con,-*

tinue to back their political fancies in Spain, they may do more than prolong the Spanish conflict; they may, indeed, extend it. As many foreigners as Spaniards are believed to have fallen in the defence of Madrid during the last month. That the vast majority of Germans, Russians and Italians now engaged in the Spanish massacre have not gone there against the wishes of their governments admits of no doubt. First to seal up the Spanish conflict and then to bring pressure to bear for peace is the sole course by which any outside power can hope to profit.”