Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1925. SECURITY PACT DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 148, 26 June 1925, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1925. SECURITY PACT DEBATE

"Europe,"says Mr. Austen Chamberlain, "is still ranged into two hostile camps, and the dangers of a new struggle are increasing." It is a sad confession for the British Foreign Minister to have to make within a few daysof the sixth anniversary of the day when the country whioh for many years had been the greatest disturber of th© world's peace was compelled by,the victorious Allies to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Though there is ample room for differences of opinion as to the causes, it is unfortunately impossible to dispute the fact. Mr. Chamberlain brought his alarming diagnosis to a climax with the suggestion that the present opportunity for a peaceful settlement is perhaps the last. The contrast between the hopes of six years ago and' the fears of to-day is a melancholy commentary on the vanity of human wishes, and yet there is one vital respect in which these fears are really the better counsellors. The Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations which it embodies were, at the time of _ signing, recognised by the three principal parties to be incomplete M. Clemenceau had very little faith in the League of Nations, and he very. properly insisted upon some more adequate protection for the north-eastern frontier of France than the vague obligations of the Covenant. President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George were unwilling to give him the frontier that he demanded, and the price of his consent to what his military advisors considered to be a more insecure position was the Reinsurance Ireaty which was signed contemporaneously with the Treaty of Versailles.

By this supplementary Treaty Britain and the United States agreed to guarantee the French frontier as fixed by the main Treaty against German aggression, but tho United States declined to ratify ifc and Britain was unwilling to take over the whole responsibility alone: After "abandoning her claim to the left bank of the Rhine, Franco thus found herself deprived of the protection which she had agreed to take in its place. Any estimate of her subsequent attitude which does not_ make allowance for the aggravation of her previous sense of insecurity by the bitterness inevit--1 ably arising from so cruel a disappointment does France a grievous 'injustice. On the other hand, no ■apportionment of the blame can 1 alter the fact that to meet the grievance of France by an attempt to.re-instate her in the position in which she stood on the 28th June [1919, would be no kindness to her' and would be a disaster to the , whole world. Mr. Austen Chamber- , lain is a staunch er, more consistent ; and more trusted friend of France , than the Prime Minister who negotiated the Peace Treaty and the Reinsurance Treaty on Britain's ■behalf. The "Manchester Guardian' is doubtless correct when ifc .describes him as the most Francophile Minister that has had charge ; of Britain's foreign policy since the ,^av. lot Mr. Chamberlain, in the speech reported to-day, rejects 'without reserve tho possibility of protecting France by any such arrangement as that offered her in 1919, even if all the Allies were parties to it.

3So unilateral pact of the Allies against Germany oouJd now, ne said, bo con"-1 tomnlatcd by tho British Government. j Both the Opposition leaders had some criticisms to offer of the .proposed Pact,'-a-ud.while approving o{ ib the '-' puily Telesraph 'i admits]

that there was something in them. But neither Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald nor Mr. Lloyd George ventured to attack Mr. Chamberlain's scheme as too comprehensive. On the contrary, Mr. Lloyd George considered that it should include some more specific provision for the security of the frontiers of, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, and Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald will apparently not be happy unless the basis oi the Pact is even broader than that of the League* of Nations itself, and disarmament is made an essential part of it. .That what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and that to ask for everything at once is usually a good way to get nothing are truths of which, at any rate in Opposition, Mr. MacDonald appears to have an imperfect appreciation. But for our present purpose both these speeches may be regarded as entirely satisfactory. Neither of them suggests a reversion to a unilateral pact, and the -whole nation and the whole Empire may be regarded as solidlyopposed to it. Negatively this is a great gain. Positively it is also a great gain that British opinion, both official and unofficial, is solid in favour of an arrangement which will include Germany and provide for mutual protection against aggression.. Mr. Chamberlain's expectation that Cologne ' will be evacuated in two months and the decision of the French Government to hasten the evacuation of the Ruhr are welcome signs that there are movements in v the right direction outside of Britain. As the'Keinsurance Treaty would have blocked the negotiations now in hopeful progress, its lapse may yet prove to have been a blessing in disguise.,