“NO MORE WAR”

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 March 1925, Page 5

“NO MORE WAR”

EMPIRE’S PEACE POLICY. GERMAN AID WELCOMED i O” ’ " “ — ‘ , .-'ft ■ (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) !' a LONDON; March 24. j : In the House of, Commons, Mr. A. ;Hepderson .initiated .a debate on the Peace Protocol. . lie declined to believe. that the Protocol was - dead. He (did not believe that , any five power ’pact, or any other arrangement would •influence the. .progress of universal compulsory ■ arbitration, to -which the Government should; consent. He said that the Government had taken a ’most serious step in declaring against 'the policy of the Geneva .protocol, ■thereby -encouraging a return to the discredited and dangerous policy of separate, limited, alliances and undertakings.

In reply, Mr. Chamberlain recalled that the MacDonald Government had rejected the Treaty of Mutual Assistance' proposed by the League of Nations, on the ground that the guarantees therein were insufficient to justify the State in reducing its army, while the Treaty would necessitate an increase in the British: navy. He said he feared-that the Labour Government had not .applied the same tests to the protocol. The ideas of M. Herriot and Mr. MacDonald, as regards security were poles asunder; The Labour Government’s idea was the suppression of individual pacts and regional agreements by one vast, universal scheme of international insurance but that was never the policy of foreign governments, which did not mean to. abandon local alliances. On the contrary, they regarded the protocol as something which must be followed by special subsidiary agreements. The protocol displayed a lack of appreciation of its implications for an empire, such as ours, scattered over the world, and based primarily on sea power. The whole of the terms were framed for the special purpose of the states with land forces, who were anxious regarding their frontiers. Britain, like the Dominions anri India, was unable to sign the protocol .because she did not think that it would . promote security or disarmament. The United States made no official - declaration in that connection, but as far as he knew the trend of American opinion, the protocol would be viewed there as a possible cause of war, rather than as an increased security for peace. Mr. Chamberlain added that the German Government was sincerely and honestly attempting to produce a better state of affairs. Therefore the British Government seriously discussed their proposals, which amounted, in act, to this: That Germany was prepared to. guarantee voluntarily what hitherto she only accepted under the compulsion of the Treaty of Versailles, namely the status quo in the west. She was prepared to eliminate war ' both east and west, as an engine by which alteration of her treaty position could be obtained; though she was not prepared to renounce her hope of eventually modifying parts of her eastern frontier : by peaceful means. These proposals constituted a signal advance, and it was essential that they should be carefully examined, in order to ascertain what advantages could be drawn from them, to make them a basis of real security and peace. Any arrangement into which we might enter should be purely defensive in character, framed in the spirit of the League Covenant, and working in close harmony with the League. Britain’s obligations and friendly adjustments should lead the nations to Cultivate friendship-, if only once they got away from the atmosphere of yesterday and turned to an attitude of the future. It was essential to such an agreement that Germany should enter the League of Nations, taking a place in the Council on a footing of equality. Otherwise," the atmosphere would be one of fear and suspicion, in fact, the attitude of an armed camp, and Europe would ultimately be given up to a new struggle. Any future generation having to pay the penalty of unnecessary war would harshly judge the statesmen who failed to take timely measures by which it might have been prevented. British influence had lost something owing to -hesitation and inconsistency, but the German proposals constituted a new chance. The . British Empire was detached from Europe by the Dominions, but it was-linked to Europe by these islands, and it could do what no other nation on the face of the earth could do. He added: “From east and west comes the cry: It is in the hands of the Empire that there shall be no more war.”

“A BOOBY TRAP” Mr. Lloyd George criticised the Protocol which he described as a “booby trap” for Britain, baited with Arbitration. He the Government to take a moral lead in Europe in setting up a more general arbitration treaty for the purpose of settling international disputes by more effective methods than war.

Mr. Lloyd George’s speech was his first public appearance since his illness, and it was delivered with his old vigour. When attacking the Protocol, he stressed the unlikelihood of the Eastern countries agreeing to arbitration. Instancing Roumania, Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland, he declared that the latter were already five Alsace-Lorraines, and they wanted a sixth namely, Dantzig. Thereupon, Mr. Chamberlain created a mild sensation by interposing: “I think Mr. Lloyd George is talking very rashly. I dissociate myself from what he is saying.” Mi». MacDonald, defending the Protocol, said that what was essential to Europe was to try and change the military mentality. Instead of thinking of alliances as the basis of security, they should adopt a new habit of thinking of arbitration. Ten years of the Protocol would lead them to that. He feared that more evil would result from honest attempts to carry out different interpretations of the League Covenant than if the parties had been enemies for years. Mr. Baldwin said that the Government was not waiting to see what the. possibility might be of. the interest-, ed pa.rti.es coming together. The Government was trying to find an agreement, hut it was too early ye( tq say. iwhat might happen. They did- not mind how inclusive the Pact <~as. They could not'say who .would come

into it. The only clear thing was that, however inclusive the''■“pactmight be,, we would not undertake any direct 1 or mutual guarantee beyond whatathey had indicated. They did not want to extend Britain’s sphere that..way, although whateypr countries it might jbe possible to bring jnto an. inclusive ( pact;/, they, would welcome them, if it proved practicable. The s Government; throughout, was< keeping//in -the closest touch with the Dominions.: He. hoped that eventually, the; issues would be comparatively so simple that it would be possible to negotiate with the Dominions to allow /theftrepresentatives, who were to attenej •the Assembly of the Ledgtie of -Na* tions in the autumn, to come to: Britain in sufficient time before the' conference at Geneva, in order to,confer together, and, if possible, go united to Geneva. . /

LONDON PRESS COMMENT - , "< • LONDON; March 25; Mr. Chamberlaiin’s/speech has been favourably received. 'The details of tlfe German offer are welcomed, ft./ The “Morning' Post,’’ describing' Ml Chamberlain’s, .prbnduncemdht as ft'A Policy at Last,” Interprets'hib speech as an the. Govern-; ment has made up.its mind to, proceed with the, proposed “pact. The paper expresses the opinion that -the real test of Germany’s good faith will be her ffiehayiour in /Eastern Europe. r ■ The “Daily Telegraph” comments that “the. magnitude of the, German offer is such that it provides a reasonable hope of' a settlement at last. It goes without saying that the Government will do all in its power to bring the negotiations to' a fruitful conclusion. We hope that Ger.many will be ■ met by the other Powers in the same spirit... as i by Great Britain.” ..... ,

The “Daily Express” editorially likens Mr. phambprlain to a man enteiv ing a''tangled wood'iil the datkhesS, with no idea of how .he is going to emerge. If he fashions on a Western pact alone, he will disrupt the Empire’s diplomatic' unity. If ■he does not contrive an Eastern pact lie will not satisfy Fiance, but if he achieves- the latter it would be laughable to imagine that the- Dominions would agree to use their force against Poland",or against Germany, as the case may bei FRENCH UNENTHUSIASTIC. PARIS, March 25. While political circles welcome Mr Chamberlain’s speech, “Le Gaulo's” says: .‘‘France is thereby relegated to an inferior position. , She can-'only maintain confidence jfft the. signatures of Britain, Italy, and' Belgiupi are alongside Germany’s.” i, “Euevre” .s^ys: .“If Germany admits France's first neiotiati';.ns will be possible.'”' “Le Journal” espresses the opinion that the proposals would place the signatories in a position conflicting with, the duties under -the. League., , //’' ft It is 'expected' tliat thi'.Fieirch'. Ambassador will inaugurate’disriiiss'ions with Mr Chamberlain Heading',fto fin, inter-allied agreeiiiejft/ aft,er-which the Allies will separately r,equest Germany to amplify the proposals., . GERMANY FOR PEACE LONDON, March 25. According to advices from. Cologne, Foreign Secretary Marx addressed a big meeting where he said Germany wants peace. “We are unarmed in the centre of an armed world. We demand that other nations disarm. Formerly Germany was famed as the armed State. She will be famed iu future for her works in the interests of peace.” Marx hinted at an alliance with Austria. “The Times’s” Berlin correspondent says that the Government lias decided to approach the Council of Ambassadors in regard to the removal of restrictions placed on German .aircraft building. . • ft .