DEADLOCK AGAIN

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 96, 20 October 1937, Page 13

DEADLOCK AGAIN

NON-INTERVENTION ISSUE' i VITAL POINT REMAINS SAME SOVIET CLASHES WITH GERMANY AND ITALY t (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyrlelit.J 3 (Received October 20, 12.30 p.m.) 3 - LONDON, October 19. j Deadlock again appears to have threatened the Non-inter-vention Committee, today's meeting of the Chairman's Sub--3 Committee revealing; that the Soviet and the Italians and Gerr mans are in the same position as in July when they clashed on the point of whether the granting of belligerent rights should j precede the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain. The meeting was held at the Foreign Office, and "lasted three hours. In the absence of Herr von Ribbentrop, who is consulting Herr Hitler at Berclitesgaden. the German view was s presented by Dr. Woerman. Charge d'Affaires. , The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, who t presided, in reviewing discussions before the adjournment pointed out that the Soviet adhered to the view that the grantt *' ing of belligerent rights must be dependent on the withdrawal . of any volunteers. Italy wanted the rights granted before the withdrawal of any volunteers, but was willing to submit the , point to the parties in the Spanish conflict. ' . Mr. Eden said that he appreciated the good will that was shown today, but the question remained of how to bridge the gap. The situation was serious, and it would not be wise, to adjourn sine die before reaching an agreement. The Committee adjourned until tomorrow, hoping that in the meantime a method will be devised of getting the divided countries closer together.'

Soon after the meeting opened Count Grandi (Italy) sprang a surprise by suggesting that the Committee should revert to the Bri- , tish proposal of July 14, on which , he did not think the French plan was i any improvement. | Dr. Woermann (Germany) warm- ; ly supported Count Grandi, but Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and Sweden supported the French plan. FRONTIER CONTROL. The Portuguese delegate stressed the desirability of the granting of belligerent rights to the insurgent leader General Franco as early as possible. Portugal was prepared, he added, to reinstate frontier control provided' t France took similar action in the . Pyrenees. M. Maisky (Russia) said that the French proposals meant the continuation of the same policy with no guarantee of greater efficacy, or for the provision of effective control. Ac- ] ceptance of the proposals would only create the opportunity for further endless discussion under cover of which the supply of arms and men to the rebels would continue. The Soviet therefore regretted that it could not accept the slightest degree of responsibility for such a policy, which had already proved its worthlessness and which had detrimental- ■ ly and iniquitously reacted on the . legitimate Spanish Government, but if the British, French, and other

1 Governments still believed there was i a possibility of success the Soviet did 3 not intend to create any difficulties. i The British Government's proposals 3 of July 14, prepared at the request of the Non-Intervention. Committee and aiming at closing the present gaps in . the control scheme and enabling the t policy of non-intervention in Spain to be continued, provided that the naval 1 patrol be discontinued and replaced by establishment, with the consent of both parties in the civil war, of international officers at Spanish ports. They also provided for observers on ships visit--1 ing Spain, for the immediate restora* f tion of supervision of the land frontiers, . for all Governments to recognise belligerent rights at sea for both the 5 Spanish parties, and for all foreign nations to be withdrawn. Britain ; sought an authorisation to enter imj mediately on discussion with both sidei in Spain. i