The Dominion MONDAY, MAY 15, 1922. THE HOUR OF DECISION

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 195, 15 May 1922, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, MAY 15, 1922. THE HOUR OF DECISION

At the point to which they have been carried at time of writing, today’s messages from Genoa leave the outcome of the Conference in doubt. A hopeful view is taken by Mr. J. L. Garvin, who is writing on the spot, and is known to be in close touch with Mr. Lloyd George. Although ho roundly accuses the French Premier (M. Poincare) of attempting to shatter the Conference, Mr. Garvin states that the. discussions will be over next week, and “may finish soon in quiet agreement.” Presumably there are grounds for this confident prediction, but they are not to be found either fin the latest reports of the Conference proceedings, or in other items of the week-end news relating to Genoa. With the exception of Mr. Garvin’s message all the news suggests that Britain and France are more than ever at a deadlock. A deadlock is indicated, not only in the report <jf tho discussion on the Russian reply, but in the significant unanimity of Paris Press cqpiments on that document. With immaterial variations of phrasing, and none of sense, the leading newspapers of the French capital assert that the Genoa. Conference is at an end. To some people their remarkable unanimity may suggest a common inspiration. It certainly implies that for the moment they are all of one mind in believing that the Conference is to be written down as a fiasco’.

Although doubt, is thus cast upon Mr. Garvin’s optimistic prediction, one thing is clearly established. A perfectly plain and understandable issue is now raised between Britain and France—an issue on which they must speedily agree, or divide with fateful consequences to themselves, Europe, and the rest of the world. During the past week, a good deal of discussion has taken place in regard to the terms in which Mr. Lloyd George recently addressed himself to the French delegation. It is clear from his own denial and the supporting statement of M. Barthou that the British Prime Minister did not threaten the dissolution of the Entente, but that he spoke in very plain terms need not'be doubted. Not improbably he may have pointed to the possible dissolution of the Entente. This is the more likely since a stage obviously has been reached at which it rests with France herself to maintain or break the Entente as an effective partnership in the domain of European and world affairs. It seems impossible to take any less serious view of the present controversy over the resumption of relations with Russia.

All parties are agreed that ’rhe Russian reply to the Allies’ memorandum is, as Mr. Lloyd George has said, provoking and unsatisfactory. With its absurdities and shortcomings, however, it leaves some ground for further negotiation, notably in the assurance that Russia is earnestly desirous of entering the projected Peace Pact. On the issue of continuing or discontinuing with Russia, the choice is between purposeful action or allowing matters to drift to catastrophe. Given the right spirit, further discussion may enable the European nations to find a basis of agreement that will enable them to compose their differences and unite in constructive effort. Unless means are thus found of lifting Europe out of its desperate straits, nothing else can be expected than the outbreak of devastating wars, which will complete the min of stricken countries, and raise ncw a and terrible international problems. The authors of French policy at Genoa apparently hold that Britain is concerned chiefly about the reestablishment. of her own > .••ide with Europe. It is admitted that the solution of Britain’s problems of trade and employment depends in part upon Russia and the Central European countries being set on their feet again. Ignoring this consideration, however, it is manifestly in the interests of all nations that peace, order, and a degree of confidence warranting the general resumption of trade and industrial activity should be re-estal>l i.-fl-ed in Europe. That her own interests are vitally involved does rot alter the fact that Britain at Genoa is upholding the only policy offering any, hope of European recovery. In opposing that policy, Fian><* offers nothing that could be regarded- as a practicable alternative. Her attitude is one of barrm negation in face of dire possibilities of European catastrophe. The merits of the »case arc well brought out in to-day’s report of the discussion on the Russian itply. M. Barthou’s attitude and arguments appear to have been those >f one who had little liking for the task imposed upon him. Mr Llovd George is clearly right in urging that mixed commissions —that is to say, commissions including Russian renresentatives —should be appointed to consider questions in dispute with Russia. M. Barthou is as obviously wrong in urging that only Allied and neutral countries, and perhaps America, should be represented on these commissions. He undermined his own contention in urging that these commissions would simply begin over again the w.-ik of the Genoa Conference. This might be true if Russian representatives were excluded, but definite progress will be made possible if all parties are brought together in practical negotiation. At the stage to which reports ere carried it is uncertain whether France will persist to the end in her obstructive policy, but the issue- to be determined within the next day or two is evidently of the utmost gravity. British people all ever the Empire entertain a deep regard • and respect for France and uro honi estly desirous of maintaining the

Entente which was cemented, it was hoped finally, in an unexampled ordeal of war. As a partnership of nations, however, the Entente can stand only if it is upheld with loyal faith and with a reasonable spirit of compromise on both sides, and today it is for France to show that she accepts and is prepared to maintain this standard.