Evening Post TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1935. GOOD LEAD FROM FRANCE

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 30, 5 February 1935, Page 8

Evening Post TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1935. GOOD LEAD FROM FRANCE

"The -whole story of British policy'vis-a-vis the Continent since 1919 is one of shirking responsibility," says Mr. W. Horsfall Carter in his article on "France-—Sentinel of Europe," in the December "Contemporary Review." In view of the immense and entirely unreciprocated obligations thai Britain assumed at Locarno in 1925 the statement is a gross exaggeration, but with this exception it represents with reasonable accuracy the general drift of her policy, a drift which did not 1 begin in 1919 but several centuries | earlier. 'As a recent illustration of 'the policy Mr. Carter quotes Sir John Simon's refusal to undertake any .responsibility for the maintenance^ of Austria's independence and his justification of the refusal with the statement that "it is not the Angld-Saxon habit , . .to make defined engagements for undefined circumstances." The formula is one which Sir John himself w.ould probably have no difficulty in proving to be far too wide if he were retained for the attack, but on one point this excessive width is not only harmless but welcome. The term "Anglo-Saxon" is wide enough to include the Americans, whose refusal to join the League of Nations or even the World Court is inspired by just the same fear of entanglements as the semi-detachment of Britain, yet is attacked by British critics with exactly the same logic that the French bring to bear upon the limitations I and hesitations of her own policy. Whether right or wrong from lhe> standpoint of her own interests, this aloofness of Britain in her position of comparative security, and her ap-' parent inability to read the lesson! of July and August, 1914; are naturally distressing and exasperating to the French, and any fair judgment of M. Barthou's astonishing explosion at Geneva in May last will make a liberal allowance for the intensity of their feelings. M. Barthou's resentment had had time to cool before ,he went on his highly successful mission to London in July. He obtained Sir John Simon's full approval of his proposed Eastern :Security Pact, and,instead of rebel- , Jmg at the inevitable saving clause, I' No new obligations on the part of ! Great Britain would be involved," he was officially reported to have 1 "fully accepted" it. In spite of the ! admirable results of Anglo-French , Co-operation at Geneva in December, of the improvement in FrancoGerman relations, and of the brilliant success of the agreement reached at Rome between France and Italy, there was reason to'fear that the vague reports on Saturday of the, "friendly confidence" and the "cordial atmosphere" of the London conversations were merely the prelude to a series of amiable formulae which would leave the fundamental problem of reconciling French security with German- equality exactly where it was, and would.protect the most ardent' expression of British good will from misunderstanding by the usual saving clause. But the final report of the AngldFrench Ministerial conversations which we published yesterday has dispelled these fears. The Ministers engaged have not been content "to finger idly the old Gordian knot" and to cover their futility with a cloud of words. They have arrived at definite and concrete conclusions on an important phase of the problem—conclusions- in which Britain joins on equal terms with France and without any saving clause, conclusions from which Britain will actually be deriving a benefit as well as, conferring one, and conclusions which are not to' be limited to the two conferring Powers but will, be given, it is hoped, a general extension over i Western Europe. The proposals relate exclusively to defence against [attack from the air, and the limita- ; tion is a wise one because this kind of i attack is the most sudden and most terrible of all, and because air warfare lends itself more readily to i international co-operation than any other kind. A reciprocal regional agreement between certain Powers is proposed as the best way of meeting j this danger, each of the Powers [undertaking to give the protection of its air forces "to whichever of them might be the victim of an unprovoked aerial aggression by one of the contracting Powers." Having arrived at this conclusion, the British and French Ministers, on behalf of their respective Governments, decided to invite Italy, Germany, and Belgium to consider whether such a convention could not be promptly negotiated. "Aerial Locarno" is the name given to this exceedingly interesting and important proposal, and its relation to the original Locarno is noteworthy in two ways. Under the Locarno Treaty Britain became a guarantor of the mutual frontiers of France, Belgium, and Germany but .received no corresponding benefit. Under the "aerial Locarno" %ll the parties will be on an equal footing, jand Britain will get a benefit corresponding to her burden. On the qthci

hand, that burden will be "no heavier than her existing Locarno obligation.

Assuming the parties were France, Germany, Belgiurm and ourselves, says Sii; John Simon, we should only be called on to participate in cases in which we were already bound by the Locarno Pact, while our promise would be limited to assisting aerially a-coun-try which had been aerially attacked thus giving precision to a promise hitherto expressed in general terms.

It seems even possible, though Sir John Simon does not say so, that Britain's responsibility would in practice be reduced by the change, the newer and more precise obligation being allowed to supersede the other one. The "Daily Express," on the other hand, declares that the new proposal "will plunge Britain deeper into the European maelstrom." The theory of Lord Beaverbrook and his paper that Britain should withdraw from all European obligations, look idly on while Europe is plunged in war, and fatten to her heart's content on the trade of a peaceful Empire is too silly to be worth discussing. The most striking of the Press comments are those of "The Times" and the "News-Chronicle." According to the former,

the agreement may be the most valuable contribution to European peace since the Locarno Pact, as it has boldly faced the twin problems of German equality and French security. There is good will towards Germany in every paragraph. <■

If Germany can only see it in that light, the problem is solved. That the "News-Chronicle," with its strong pacific bias, should say that "the Anglo-French suggestions are ingenious and well-considered and should form a new starling point towards European peace" is significant. A series of regional pacts which will provide the collective system with teeth may be realised if this view is general! But we must recognise that the suggestions are not Anglo-French but Franco-British. They make a start along the road which France has long been advocating. Deploring British, aloofness in the article already quoted, Mr. Carter says:

It simply means that France continues sentinel of Europe, .of a Federal Union of States, which is in the womb of contemporary history—as Briand saw—but1 which cannot be brought forth unless Britain plays the part of midwife. A French Kurope is no more acceptable than a Europe directed and controlled from Berlin. . . . What France has done, under Herriot under Briand, under Barthou, is to set forth times without number the pattern of institutions—international air police, European air transport etc appropriate to a twentieth-century world, indeed, essential, as Lord Cecil declared in his address at the University of Brussels, "if Europe is to sur-