The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1924. NEW YEAR PROSPECTS IN EUROPE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 83, 31 December 1924, Page 8

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1924. NEW YEAR PROSPECTS IN EUROPE

With another year about to open, many nations are able to look forward with increased confidence and brightened hopes on account of the progress that has at length been made in laying the foundations of European settlement. From the time the Great War came to an end until this year had run more than half its course, the outlook of the whole world was clouded by the state of affairs existing in Europe. (

Instead of a peace settlement, .there was a continuation of hostilities in a new form. Germany, instead of meeting her war liabilities, pursued extraordinary tactics of evasion and obstruction. Amongst other things she indulged in such a debauch of currency depreciation as the world had never seen, France, as the Allied nation most keenly intent on bringing Germany to a reckoning, instituted strong measure of coercion, including the occupation of the Ruhr early in 1923, but for a long time these were barren of effect. These unsettled and potentially explosive conditions not only crippled or hampered efforts at reconstruction in Europe, but reacted, always unfavourably and sometimes disastrously, on . international affairs and problems throughout the world. Nearly every country in the world would have been in a better state, economically and in every other way, if such a settlement between Germany and the Allies as the Dawes report makes possible had been reached a year or two ago. The acceptance by the nations concerned of the Dawes reparations settlement opens, or appears to have opened, a new era in international affairs. Until a week or so ago, there was a general feeling of relief and of confidence that a practical adjustment of outstanding war issues had at last been effected. Now, however, there are again mutterings, or rather more than mutterings, of renewed dispute between Germany and the Allies. The situation has its obviously threatening features, but its outcome can hardly be serious if plain prominence is given to the facts in dispute. The contention now developing is not in any way concerned with the main features of the Dawes scheme. Under this practical settlement. as most people know, Germany is obtaining international assistance in re-establishing her credit, and at the same time has an assurance that she will not be required to pay more in reparations than she is capable of paying without undue strain or sacrifice. The Allies, on their part, have better guarantees of obtaining substantial compensation payments from Germany than they are likely to secure by any alternative procedure. Neither Germany nor the Allies can afford to wreck this settlement, or allow it to be wrecked, and it is the saving feature of the existing situation that strong sections in all the countries concerned are likely to recognise and act upon this selfevident fact.

The present dispute turns wholly on the question of Germany’s good faith-in carrying out her disarmament obligations. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies arc bound to evacuate the Cologne bridgehead on January 10 next, provided Germany has carried out her treaty obligations. The unanimous decision of the Allies to postpone the evacuation implies that they are convinced of the truth of the charges made in France that Germany has defaulted in the matter of the destruction of war material. It is most unsatisfactory, however, that the charges against Germany have not yet been established by the publication of conclusive evidence.

We- are told to-day on the authority of the diplomatic correspondent of. a London newspaper that the Allies “will probably follow up the present Note with a definite pronouncement of Germany’s defaults.’’ Obviously it would have been very much better had this step been taken at the outset. At the moment the facts are far from being clearly established, and an opportunity has thus been afforded to German propagandists of which they are eagerly making the most. Fortunately their usual ineptitude has led these trouble-makers into such absurdities as find expression in the assertion that the decision not to evacuate Cologne is to be attributed less to “French militarism” than to “British cant” and to a sinister attempt by Britain to destroy German industries.’ Even in Germany, it may be supposed, only a small part of the population will be gulled by this extravagance of false accusation.

• The essential point, however, is that in dealing with such a question as is now raised with Germany there is no need to give any opening to unscrupulous propagandists in that country. Any attempt to postpone the evacuation of the occupied areas on trivial or insufficient grounds would certainly be condemned in Britain and America, and could hardly be defended in France. Assuming, on the other hand, that the Allied charges are sheeted home, it may be expected that at least a considerable proportion of the German people will insist that their Government discharge its treaty obligations, if, indeed, they-do not recognise that the Allies are entitled to exercise pressure to that end. The Allies have everything to gain from a policy of open frankness. Adopting it, they will consolidate public opinion in their own countries and in America, and may hope to make the mischiefmaking efforts of German propagandists ridiculous even in the eyes of their own countrymen. Much harm has already been done by allowing dissension to develop in an atmosphere of some obscurity and uncertainty. If, however, the obvious remedy of establishing clearly the facts of Germany's default is applied without further-delay, the year 1925, may witness excellent progress, not only in forwarding economic adjustment and restoration in Europe and throughout the world, but in strengthening the safeguards of peace.