PEACE PACTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 September 1927, Page 7

PEACE PACTS

LEAGUE’S COMPROMISE ALL PARTIES PLEASED (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) GENEVA, September 10. The agitations and the heart-burn-ings of the past few days are over. Poland’s intentions disappeared late in the afternoon session of the Assembly when M. Sokal presented the actual resolution. Its wording has undergone many alterations, many jurists of various nationalities having taken a hand in drafting, amending, and re-drafting it last night. The form was accepted earlier in the day by the Big Three, Sir A. Chamberlain, M. Briand and Herr Stresemann. It was altered again at the instance of Warsaw, by the inclusion of an appeal to members of the League to conclude pacts of non-aggression. which are equally disliked by Britain and France. By the former as explained previously, because they might be the beginning of a movement which would eventually enlarge her present obligations, particularly in the event of Russian agression against some members of the League. The resolution was finally submitted, omitting the appeal for pacts. Al. Sokal, head of the Polish delegation, pale with emotion, speaking with difficulty, offered the following declaration : “The Assembly realising its solidarity is inspired by a firm will to maintain peace. Recognising that a war of aggression must never serve as a means of settling differences, and believing a solemn renunciation of all war will create an atmosphere of general confidence favourable to the progress of disarmament, the Assembly declares, first of _ all, that war is to remain prohibited. Secondly, all pacific means must be employed for the settlement of disputes no matter of what nature, arising among the States. Member’s of the League are under an obligation to conform with these principles. If the invitation in the earlier draft to conclude pacts of non-aggression is eliminated.”

STRESEMANN’S OFFER. GENEVA, September 11. Reflections upon events yesterday produced the impression that Herr Stresemann’s unconditional acceptance on behalf of Germany of the optnonal clauses of the Hague Court was far and away the most important event of the present Assembly. The full significance was hardly realised last night. Herr Stresemann used stage management, making the declaration very dramatic. The concluding climax was contained in the incidental paragraph of the speech. The point was somewhat overlooked owing to the delivery in rapid German and was understood by few delegates, but to-day the announcement is recognised as a step of first-class national importance. This can be interpreted as a first round victory for the opponents of the two-sided attempt by Poland and Holland to revivify the principles of the Protocol, but the struggle is unfinished. There will be further fights in committee, but British circles do not fear that finally there will be any serious resurrection of the most objectionable features of the Protocol, after the speeches of M. Sokal and Herr Stresemann.

The latter spoke in German, necessitating translations first into French and then into English. He emphasised that the Locarno agreements were not outside the League. It was precisely the conclusion of these agreements which had brought Germany into the League. It was incomprehensible that doubts should be expressed whether Locarno covered all the nations concerned or only some of them. They were practical application in a special form of the main fundamental ideas of the League. He went on to express the belief that the solemn declaration of nations against war would not be valueless. Among the discordant voices which had recently arisen were the voices of responsible statesmen determining to abolish violence and aggression, which would soon give a clear head. Herr Stresemann concluded with the important announcement that he intended during the present session to sign on behalf of Germany the optional clauses of the Court of Arbitration atl The Hague. This means compulsory acceptance of the Court’s decisions in any dispute between nations who have not signed the optional clauses. , At the tail end of the evening session came Signor Scialoga’s address condemning pessimism concerning the League’s future, pointing out the failure of the Naval Conference could not be attributed to the League. He expressed the opinion that their mutual protection in Article ten of the Covenant, was far stronger than M. Sokal’s proposition or any motion the Assembly could pass, even if it was unanimous. The gap in the Covenant, if any, could not be filled up by mere commendation or even amendment. “All the jurists in the world would not enable us always to declare which Power in a dispute was the aggressor. If we attempted to solve within two years problems requiring thirty years, the League would be going at such a pace it would break its neck.’’

FRENCH ACCEPTANCE. GENEVA, Sept. 11. M. Briand, in the Assembly, declared that Herr Stresemann’s speech removed the last clouds. France and Germany were now able to meet openly and discuss the most delicate question, which had previously seemed inconceivable. Some people, seeking profit from producing conflict and dissension, were aiming at a rupture of the League, but all members of the League belonged to a family working for universal peace. France, more than ever, favoured obligatory jurisdiction and arbitration. M. Briand asked whether public discussion on disarmament helped the cause of peace. When legislators were busy reorganising military forces, they must consider public feeling. It was useless to say there was no means of security for the execution of recommendations. Nobody expected the goal in one spurt. It required an act of faith and all must make the same .effort. If war broke out all would be dragged in. . . Commending the Polish proposals,

he said that such declarations were not in vain, indeed they were registered by the nations. Trangressors would have to account for themselves before the tribunal of the world’s conscience. Herr Stresemann’s speech was noble and courageous. M. Briand declared that the principle of arbitration was progressing, as evidenced by Herr Stresemann’s acceptance of compulsory arbitration and France had equally accepted arbitration. The dogs of war had been unleased in the recent Graco-Bulgar-ian conflict, and when the League ordered a suspension, both parties had honourably obeyed. This alone justified existence of the League. Senator Pearce followed with a lengthy speech. He outlined Australia’s attitude, and said she was most keenly interested in all the proposals making for disarmament and peace. He declared that the League must not be stamped into hasty decisions. Nothing was more likely to lessen confidence in the League than vacillation in pursuit of peace, or desire to please passing phases of public opinion, or demand for the sensational and dramatic. The presence of representatives of ex-enemy nations, <ll honestly and sincerely seeking disarmament and peace, was a miracle. Referring to the proposals to reconsider the protocol, he said the lack of confidence in the protocol had caused serious doubt and misgivings. Australia was inexperieced in international diplomacy, but had had practical experience of compulsory arbitration which was the main principle of the protocol. The term of compulsory arbitration itself contemplated ill will in dispute and force. While he was not prepared to say industrial arbitration in Australia had failed, he could not say it could be classed as an unqualified success. The League’s main aim should not be a settlement of disputes, but prevention of differences, developing into disputes requiring intervention, either by the League or by the Hague Court, and encouragement of settlements by friendly negotiations without resorting to the League. Australia felt that the protocol would extend the danger of driving disputants into hostile camps, as industrial arbitration had done in Australia. The League should earnestly pursue armament by agreement, and success would come. SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH. GENEVA, September 11. Sir A. Chamberlain, addressing the Assembly, said that no country had done so much to guarantee the frontier of other countries as Britain. In guaranteeing the frontier of France, Germany and Belgium, she would keep her pledges as faithfully as she did to Belgium in 1914. Could not other nations go as much before pressing Britain to go further, and in so doing, bring together two other nations regarding each other with suspicion and fear. It would be impossible to take up the principles of the protocol, without reopening the troubled debates.. He added: You ask us to take for every country frontier the same guarantee we take for the western frontier under the Locarno Pact. If you ask us that, you ask the impossible. You do not know what you are asking. You are asking nothing less than the disruption of the British Empire. I yield to none in devotion to the League, but not even for the League, will I destroy that smaller and older League, the British Empire. He implored the Assembly to have confidence in the covenant, the delegates and in themselves. If the Assembly piled sanction upon sanction, it might make its house a living tomb. To-day’s impossibilities might be achievable to-morrow. The League was a sturdy sapling, and eventually the nations assemble under its protection, as beneath the shadow of a mighty oak. Sir A. Chamberlain spoke for four and a half hours, paying a tribute to Herr Stresemann and to Mr Briand, who he complimented on shaking hands with Stresemann, as a vow of Franco-German peace. Their speeches answered the recreant remarks that the League was losing authority. He said that M. Sokal’s motion, though not new, was welcomed because it resolved to eschew the path of war. He agreed with M. Lambro who denied that the Great Powers were withdrawing from the Council of the Assembly decisions belonging to it. The failure of the Naval Conference provided a lesson for the future. Britain had proved by her deeds that she earnestly desired a real reduction of armaments, regarding arbitration. The Empire was a community of free nations, unable always to accept obligations readily undertakable by a homogeneous State. ’

SPEECHES TO PRESSMEN. GENEVA, September 9. M. Briand, addressing the Journalists, made one of the greatest speeches in his career. He paid a tribute to the reciprocal friendliness of Geneva’s atmosphere. Though the work of the League seemed slow, the power for peace would become epidemic. Sir A. Chamberlain, eloquently speaking in French, said he was pleased at the adoption of M. Briand’s advice. -Herr Stresemann advocated peace and disarmament. He said (amidst applause) that there could be no spirit of peace while there were occupied territories. M. Vandervelde said that if he were speaking purely personally, he would have referred to the anxiety in certain parts of the world over the deplorable spirit of those endeavouring to divide it into conquerors and conquered, establishing a situation wherein some others would be entirely disarmed. Speaking on behalf of his Government, it would be recognised that nations must disarm and limit armaments. The Assembly must not baulk problems, nor attempt to settle them by formula, but subject genuine solutions. The above speeches were made at a luncheon given by journalists accredited to the League. M. Briand’s advice, which Sir A. Chamberlain commended, was an appeal to the journalists not to push criticism of such a magnificent edifice as the League to a point which they might later regret.

AMERICANS PRESENT LIBRARY. (A.P.A. & Sun.) GENEVA, Sept. 10. The Council, at a private meeting, appointed the German member of the Mandates Commission, Doctor Ludwig Kastl, a prominent Industrialist. He has had wide experience in German colonies and spent ten years in South Africa. He remained after the war as Commissioner to the British Administration. Later, he was head of the Reparation Department in the German Ministry of Finance. The Council accepted the unconditional offer of two million dollars from a group of Americans to establish a library at Geneva for use of the increasing number of students of International affairs.