Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1933. SCOPE FOR CONSULTATION

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 130, 5 June 1933, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1933. SCOPE FOR CONSULTATION

A week before the opening of the World Economic Conference the omens are looking less favourable than they did. The two most hopeful items in last week's news both ended in disappointment. The report from New York on Wednesday that, President Roosevelt would use his treaty-making powers to effect a war debt settlement with Britain and France which would provide for reduction, and probably for postponement also, was followed almost im-' mediately by a Washington message which reported that it had been emphatically denied by thfe White House. The same day brought word that the British Cabinet was divided on the question of meeting the payment due on the 15th; and the possibility of its being left to a free vote of the House of Commons was mentioned but contradicted. Whatever the Cabinet or the House may decide, it is, to say the least, highly probable that Congress would rather risk the wrecking of the Economic Conference than knock a single dollar off the claim,or grant a single day's grace. A solid set-off to this grave danger was the announcement that the terms of the Four-Power Pact had been settled, and that it was expected to be signed on Thursday. But on that day the House of Commons was informed by Sir John Simon that "the exact form of the document was not quite decided." It is now evident, however, that something more serious than a question of form is at stake. The delay in the initialling of the Four-Power Pact is considered in Rome to confirm the rumour of a hitch, especially over Article 3, which, as cabled last week, merely affirms that "Germany recognises she cannot reach equality of arms except by stages in conformity with the Covenant." It is the attempt to define these stages that appears to be now making trouble. It is also believed, according .to "today's report from Borne,; that .Signor Mussolini is dissatisfied with Prance's reluctance to sign. In the meantime official ■ circles continue to be optimistic, but the public are of opinion that the pact if signed will be only a "damp' squib." The fact that 'public opinion, which of course in Italy means Fascist opinion, regards the Pact in its present form as only a "damp squib" does not justify surprise or disappointment. Outside ,of Italy there had been a widespread fear that '.a project of which not Mac Donald the Pacifist but Mussolini the Dictator was the originator was designed to supersede the League of Nations, to dominate Europe after the fashion of the Three-Power combination which was known as the Holy Alliance, and in particular to take-in hand the work of revising the Peace Treaties in the interest of Germany and Italy. The disappointment of the Fascists is a sufficient answer to that fear. It is better that the Pact should be disparaged in the land of its origin as a damp squib than that it should be regarded by France and Poland and the Little Entente States as a high explosive. Any arrangement of the kind would be far more dangerous if it attempted too much and tied the bonds too tight than if it erred in the opposite direction. But Signor Mussolini's alleged dissatisfaction with the reluctance of France to sign suggests the possibility that she may be raising objections as well as Germany, but the natural presumption is that the objections of France are to changes proposed by Germany, in the general terms of the clause already quoted which keeps the German approach to equality within, the limits recognised by the Covenant of the League. As the Permanent Council of the Little Entente, which had declared so promptly and so emphatically against Signor Mussolini's proposal as vaguely announced at the close of his conversations " with the British Ministers, was reported last week to have withdrawn its objection at the instance of France, it is very unlikely that France herself has since been throwing the matter open again by proposing : new amendments. Though the friendly relations existing between Italy and Germany and her fear of them both have naturally made France suspicious of Signor Mussolini's lead, her attitude has not been unreasonable. M. Daladier declared at the outset that she could not take part in "a sort of directorate of the four Great Powers which would lay down the law to the rest of Europe and which, like a new Holy Alliance, would decide on territorial changes." It is quite possible that Signor Mussolini may have had such a scheme in view and quite certain that Mr. Mac Donald t

had not. Thte French objections cleared the air which had previously been hazy. On the positive side France declared her approval of the collaboration of the Four Powers "within the framework and in the spirit of thfe League of Nations," and it is for this that the draft Pact provides. It also declares that "the parties agree to consult each other on all questions, especially those dealing with the economic restoration of Europe." There is surely an immense scope for collaboration and consultation between the four contracting Powers without touching any of the perilous issues of treaty revision and territorial changes which, in the present temper of Europe, would simply be the letting loose of the waters of strife. The practice of collaboration and consultation in an intimate and businesslike fashion on much less delicate problems will have to be firmly established before any drastic revision of the Peace Treaties can be profitably or even safely discussed. An immense advance will have been made if Germany can be schooled to habits of collaboration and consultation on any issues .at all, and a private conference with the three other leading Powers of Europe will give her a much better chance than the larger tribunals and litigious atmosphere of Geneva.