PEACE IN EUROPE

Evening Star, Issue 22031, 17 May 1935, Page 8

PEACE IN EUROPE

GRAVE INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS CLEAR DUTY BEFORE BRITAIN RIGID ADHERENCE TO LEAGUE PRINCIPLES (British Official Wireless.) Press Association —Jsy Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, May 16. (Received May 17, at 2 pirn.) An important survey of the international situation was made at Fulham by Captain Eden at the first public meeting that he has addressed since his recent illness. The reality of the formidable character of the European difficulties, he said, could not be doubted, but he was convinced that they were not insuperable. If they were to be overcome, however, every nation had its part to play. Britain’s part should be to pursue a foreign policy that was frank and stalwart, and, above all, firm in support of the League and of the collective peace system.

The most important event in the international history of the past few months was undoubtedly the agreement reached in London between the French and British Governments on February 3. There was surely good reason for hoping that this agreement would have made it clear to all that any lingering doubts as to Germany’s true equality of status which might still remain anywhere ought no longer to be entertained.

The London communique dealt in the main with two subjects—security and armaments. On neither of these heads was .it possible to record substantial progress at Berlin. As to security, Germany made an offer in respect of a multilateral pact Of non-aggression in Eastern Europe. That was welcome news. This country, however, based its conception of European security upon the League of Nations, and unfortunately they were not able to record Germany’s present willingness to resume her membership of that organisation. With regard to armaments, it was quite true that the German Government emphasised that it wanted an arms convention, but the ultimate value of such a declaration mutt clearly be dependent upon whether the country that made it was prepared to accept limitations such as to afford reasonable prospects of a general agreement. Take one example—effectives. It had always been assumed hitherto in ail disarmament discussions that, in any agreement as to military forces, there would be parity between the effectives stationed in Europe of the three great Western Continental Powers —France. Germany, and Italy. Such was the proposal embodied in the British draft convention—the MacDonald plan—where the figure of 200,000 was proposed for France, Germany, and Italy, while the much larger figure of 500,000 was given Russia. It was important to remember that Germany herself in the past frequently praised this draft convention, and regretted what she described as “ departures from its principles.” Indeed, this convention was accepted by the Disarmament Conference as a whole, including Germany, as a basis for any future convention.

A year ago, when he visited Berlin, Home, and Paris, this principle ol parity between the three Western Continental Powers was nowhere disputed. Germany then asked, however, that the figure should bo not 200,000, but 300.000. If the German Government now maintained its need for 550,000, it must be clear that, ( at such a very high figure, parity between the three Western Continental Powers on an equal basis of training was frankly unattainable. He appreciated that, in the view of the German Government, this figure was justified by her anxieties in Eastern Europe. He proceeded, therefore, to examine the situation with regard to Soviet Russia. He had never been in a country which more clearly had cause to be fully occupied at home for many years to come. An observer would expect that, for her own sake. Soviet Russia would be averse to anything which would dislocate the machinery she was so laboriously building up, and no greater dislocation could be imagined than war. Again, vast distances separated Berlin from Moscow, and, since the recreation of the great Polish State,_tbe possibility of aggression by Russia upon Germany had become a geographical anachronism. For these and other reasons, he found it difficult to share the apprehensions of military aggression by Soviet Russia which appeared to exist in Germany.

The League of Nations and the Locarno treaties were important stabilising factors which did not exist in 1914. The Locarno treaties constituted the most important effort of constructive statemanship in Europe since the foundation of the League itself. They were to the advantage of all their signatories, and the security they brought extended equally to both sides of the boundaries which they guaranteed— German, no less than Belgian and French. Mutuality was a vital element in Locarno. Referring to those who still advocated isolation, he recalled that Britain’s greatest commitment was in her membership of the League of Nations, of which the dominions were also members.