PEACE PACTS AND LEAGUE

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 September 1927, Page 7

PEACE PACTS AND LEAGUE

COMPROMISE proposed; “WAR PROHIBITED” (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.— Copyright.) GENEVA, Sept. 8. The labour of the mountain has brought forth a mouse. The Poles have accepted a whittled down peace pact formula that is acceptable to “Sir A. Chamberlain, M. t ßriand, and Herr Stresemann. The excitement has lasted for two days, but has now passed. However, the Dutch Protocol proposition is still to be tackled. The Polish proposals, as amended, were handed to the heads of the Locarno Treaty Powers. These amended proposals were: All wars of aggression are to remain prohibited. The League Assembly declares it obligatory that the members of the League shall conform with this principle. Therefore the Assembly calls’on the members of the League to conclude non-aggressian pacts, inspired' by the idea that all pacific means ought to be employed to settle mutual differences whatsoever their nature. This version increases rather than diminishes the obligations of the> Locarno Pact signatories. The British Delegation confirms this. I A Warsaw press correspondent declares that the latest demands nrp entirely unacceptable to the Powers that are subscribing to the modified pact. DISARMAMENT* ESSENTIAL. GENEVA, September 9. The public galleries were packed when the Belgian, M. Vandervelde, resumed the debate. He deplored the division of the Assembly into two camps. The Assembly owed itself the duty of considering the Dutch and other proposals, based on principles of the Protocol, in order to record an opinion against war. They should proceed slowly and prudently, An incomplete solution, -would, be dangerous.,. The Disarmament Conference had not failed. The Powers now recognised that there was not merely a moral, but a judicial obligation to disarm. It was now essential to prepare a* solution of the problem, leaving its execution to the nation. It was impossible 'for nations to remain stationary. They must either disarm or continue the wild pursuit of armaments, leading inevitably to war. People wanted, not merely guarantees, but conscious security. PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.LONDON, September 8. The “Daily Mail’s” .Geneva correspondent says: —“Count Aplonyi, after; referring to the success of the League, examined its failures, the chief of which, he said, was the lack,of pro-; tection which the League accorded to; the minorities which were brought into existence by the Peace treaties. ■ He had proposed remedies .which the League Councl had rejected. The minorities that were created by the War would always endanger peace.”

POOLING OF FUNDS. GENEVA, Sept. 8. Sir A. Chamberlain welcomed the proposal of Erich Finlay, suggesting tire pooling of the League funds in order to compensate victims, as evidence of the solidarity of the League against a State guilty of aggression, since anticipation of the receipt of such aid might deter intending aggressors. Sir A. Chamberlain added that the scheme involved heavy commitments. His Government would not request the neqessary powers from Parliament, unless it was proved Britain would secure compensation for the financial effort. For instance, in the shape of a reduction’ in armaments' and the prospect of general disarmament, a decision on this matter must be reserved until disarmament attained a visible measure of success and it-could be seen the extent to which members of the League supported the scheme. TARIFFS CONFERENCE. GENEVA, Sept. 8. The International Conference of representatives of Governments of members and non-members of the League will meet at Geneva on September 17, to frame an agreement abolishing the import and export prohibitions and restrictions. GERMANY WANTS MANDATE. GENEVA, September 8. The League Council to-day received the Mandates Commissions report, including a recommendation to increase the membership in order to give Germany a seat on the Commission. In an interview a leading German delegate said:—“We desire a seat on the Mandates Commission chiefly in order to remove the stigma of moral inferiority and the suggestion that we did not rule our colonies justly and humanely. We-insist that Germany ruled the native races as well as—tve do not say better than —any other Power with colonies. We are content to think that Germany has done a worthy share in the work of exploration and in scientific efforts of all kinds for the benefit of the natives, particularly in Africa, where we are assured, the West Africans would like to return to German control in preference to union with South Africans. Nevertheless, we are not joining the Mandates Commission' in order to seek a quick return of our mandated ex-colonies. We recognise that, though this would be acceptable, it would be impossible, '• except through a mandate - being vacated, or through the League making a decision based on • a recommendation of the Mandates Commission itself, which, at the. time, is very unlikely. Our vital concern is to participate in the League’s colonising work as a recognition of our experience and efforts on behalf of . the native peoples. We have no aims whatever in tlie direction of again obtaining control of New Guinea, Nauru or Samoa.”