LAUSANNE CONFERENCE

Evening Star, Issue 21007, 22 January 1932, Page 9

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE

WAR DEBTS AND REPARATIONS PROCEDURE HOT SETTLED YET Press Association-By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON. January 21. ‘The Times’ says “The Foreign Office announces that in view of the fact that the Governments concerned at Lausanne have not yet come to an agreement the\conference cannot begin on January 25. Further conversations are progressing, and the Government hopes for a satisfactory agreement on procedure in a few days.” AMERICA DISAPPOINTED NOT WHOLLY UNEXPECTED. WASHINGTON, January 21. The announcement from London of the postponement of the Lausanne Conference was learned with regret in official circles here, though it was not wholly unexpected. While those who are in close touch with the situation are not yet ready\to subscribe to the pessimism reflected in the London despatches that the conference may not be held at all, it is admitted that a deadlock exists, particularly in view of Dr Bruening’s refusal to accept a year’s extension of the moratorium. The situation, as it has developed during the last twenty-four hours, is held to be confirmatory of, the reasonableness of the attitude or the United States that reparations and war debts must be considered apart, and that the European nations should first agree upon a reparations policy among themselves. The New York ‘Times,’ in a leader to day, comments on M. Laval’s statement that “ we shall not permit the right of reparations to be taken away” as being without point, and says further: “What good does it do to insist on a right which has been rendered obsolete by events?” Mr Silas Strawn,, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, in a radio address, said: "We cannot settle the problem of reparations among our allies, that iis their job, but we can and do insist that reparations and inter-allied debts are separate and distinct subjects, and that when the ability of our debtors to pay us is up for discussion we shall be interested.” CONCERTED DEBT MOVE AMERICA’S FEAR. NEW YORK, January 20. The ‘New York Times’s’ Washington correspondent says : “ The disclosure of Mij Stimson’s memorandum of December to the French Ambassador (M. Claudel) reveals that the United States has been concerned lest the European Powers should form a united front against America, confronting her with a demand for a reduction of Governmental debts in return for a scaling down of German reparations. The memorandum reiterated the United States’s known attitude on the question of war debts and reparations, and intimated that a new moratorium would stand no chance of approval by Congress, which looks with displeasure upon collective action by the debtor nations against the United States. The fear of the so-called united front manoeuvre, however, was dissipated when British Press reports,, apparently reflecting the MacDonald Government’s policy, intimated that England would frown upon any concerted debt move. That there would at the outset be sentiment in favour of reducing the terms of the British debts is seen in the attitude of Senator Reed, of Pennsylvania, who agrees that stricter terms were reached with Britain than with France and other countries,” APPEAL BY CHURCHES LONDON, January 21. Anglican bishops and Free Church leaders, through the Council of Christian Ministers, appealed to all Christians to urge cancellation of reparations and war debts, stating that “a spirit of-vengeance prevailed at Versailles, with disastrous consequences to the victor.”

PAYMENT IN GOODS FREE MARKETS ESSENTIAL. LONDON, January 21. (Received January 22, at 10 a.m.) Mr Frederick Goodenough, presiding at Barclay’s Bank meeting, said it was becoming increasingly dear ;that it was impossible that the substantial war debts and reparations could be pqid otherwise than in goods, which must therefore be allowed free access to the creditor countries hitherto receiving payment largely in gold. The position to which international trade had been reduced during the past two years jusified the traditional Freetrade policy in Britain as a great creditor nation, but the exigencies of the moment demanded protection of our markets. The Empire could doubtless be strengthened by granting preferences to certain articles.

CONVERSATIONS PROCEEDING

HOPES OF AN AGREEMENT,

(B ritish Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, January 21 (Received January 22, at noon)

Following the postponement of the Lausanne Reparations Conference, conversations are continuing which, it is hoped, will in a few days produce a satisfactory agreement on the procedure to be adopted. The German Government has as yet been unable to

agree to the proposal made by the British Government that in so far as Europe is concerned, the existing arrangements should be continued for another year. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM NOT FAVOURED BY GERMANY. LONDON, January 21. (Received January 22, at 11 a.m.) The Berlin correspondent of ' The Times' states; Sir Horace Eumbold (British Ambassador) asked Dr Bruening whether Germany would agree to the prolongation of the Hoover moratorium until June 6, 1933. Dr Bruening replied that it was impossible to consent to any proposal prolonging the general uncertainty.

SENSATION IN FRANCE PARIS, January 21. (Received January 22, at 11 a.m.) Dr Bruening’s statement has caused a sensation, and is likely to affect the debate in the Chamber of Deputies. DEBT CANCELLATION MR BORAH SPEAKS OUT “You want me to speak frankly?” “ Surely 1’” “ So m unison exclaimed some seventeen French journalists who had come to Washington with Premier Laval,” says the ‘Literary Digest.’ “They sat at a great oval table facing the square-set jaw and the bristling leonine mane of William E. Borah, chairman of the Foreign , Relations Committee of me Senate.

“So he spoke frankly. “ We compress his most challenging utterances; —

“ ‘I have in mind cancellation of reparations in their entirety and cancellation of international debts in their entirety. “‘lf reparations had in the first place been confined to direct damages they could have been justified, and France would have had damages for her injuries, and Belgium would have had, and tuat could have been well justified. “‘ My understanding is that that would have been very satisfactory to Germany. “ ‘The time is past for moratoriums. We have reached the time when if we are going to relieve the economic situation, wo shall have to cut, instead of push it back for a year or two and destroy the credit of every nation against whom it stands. “ ‘ If we just simply push these debts back, and they are accumulating interest and all, the credit of the nation is disappearing dav by day, and the confidence of other people in the nation; and I cannot see anything to be gained by a moratorium. “ This question of using force as a peace proposition has never appealed to mo at all.

'“lf we have not reached the stage where nations are willing to reason out disputes, to meet and discuss in a peaceful way, we have not reached the time when wo may expect disarmament.

“ 1 1 think there will have to be some changes in the Versailles Treaty. “ ‘I do not think that you are going to get any disarmament in Europe so long ns certain conditions which arise out of the Versailles Treaty _ continue to exist. That is just my opinion, three thousand miles away.

“‘You might have peace by sheer force, bat yon would not have that peace which is based upon contentment, the people satisfied that justice has been done.

“ ‘ The other peace ..quires armaments, because the :o exists by reason of the fact that vast armies are in the field to attack an aggressor.’ ” “ This. interview,” comments the ' laterary Digest,’ “created a world sensation.”