SECURITY PACT DEMAND

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 March 1930, Page 5

SECURITY PACT DEMAND

CONFERENCE’S PROBLEM SEEKING A COMPROMISE [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY, March 28. Except for a conversation between the Prime Minister and Messrs. Stimson and Gibson, of the American delegation, there have been no meetings between the Naval Conference delegates to-day, nor have any been arranged before Monday morning, when the delegation chiefs will again meet. Contact is likely to be maintained by the experts, on whom has devolved the task of possible means of achieving an agreement with particular reference to the political aspects of the problem. To-night all of the delegations were guests at a reception at the House of Lords, after which the Prime Minister left for Chequers, where he is remaining until Sunday night. The British spokesman, commenting on the report of the Anglo-French experts, who practically have abandoned the hope of finding a security for-1 mula, asserted that work was still I going on. I

TWO-POWER FACT OPPOSED. WASHINGTON, March 29. Senator Swanson stated that a consultative pact such as was being suggested in London as a basis for a naval disarmament treaty, would be a “return to the old concept of power that controlled Europe for many years, and which was the cause of many wars and many injustices.” Senator Swanson declared that such a pact would either involve the United States in political obligations in Europe, or would be a “snare and a delusion.” He continued: “How will Spain, Greece, Jugoslavia, Turkey and Egypt, bordering on the'Mediterannean, view a five-Power Pact thus entered into, and excluding them? It will be better for the United States to enter the League of Nations, where all the nations can meet and consult for the peace and betterment of the world.lt will be better to do this than to enter a special arrangement with four European Powers. Special arrangements with other nations are contrary to its policy, which President Wilson advocated, and it seems to me that it will be fraught with trouble.”

U.S.A. DELEGATION & PRESIDENT. (Received March 31, 8 a.m.) NEW YORK, March 29. The “Herald and Tribune’s” Washington correspondent says: The State Department has issued the following statement: — “There is no difference in view between the President and our delegation in London. The delegation always had, and now has, his unqualified support and authority. The delegation is patiently seeking to explore every suggestion made, and every possibility that leads to the great purpose of the Conference, that is, a reduction and limitation in naval arms, and preservation of the peace of the world. It is a high hope that the plan for so doing can be developed, which will meet with the approval of the American people, and be consonant with our traditional policies and ideals.” While the statement makes no mention of a consultative pact, it seems clearlj r to rule out more formally than ever, the hope of France, if its exists, that the American delegation will affix the United States’ signature to such a pact. In the opinion of some observers here, it proceeds beyond this, strongly to indicate, in the event of failure of a five-Power pact, that the United states will be able to avoid a charge of contributing to its failure.

MORE CONVERSATIONS. [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY, March 30. Although it is not yet clear whether any development in the Naval Conference will emerge from their efforts, the delegates showed no disposal to relax their attention on the problems before them during the week-end. The Foreign Secretary (Mr Henderson) who landed with M. Briand on Saturday, afterwards had a long conversation with him, which it was arranged to continue later. At the same time, Signor Grandi was meeting Senator Robinson of the United States delegation, and to-day went to Chequers, where he lunched and talked with the Prime Minister. The latter came to London to-night, and will be present at to-morrow morning’s meeting of the heads of all delegations. Meanwhile, advisers of the British and French delegations have continued their informal meetings, at which they have jointly explored the methods of circumventing the apparent deadlock, which confronted the Conference in its recent stages.

NO MILITARY COMMITMENTS. (Recd. March 31, 2.15 p.m.) LONDON. March 30. The Chequers conversations were directed to obtaining the Italian viewpoint upon the Conference’s attempt to Bridge the gap between the somewhat vague phrasing of Article 1G of the League covenant, and France’s definite demand for security. The British spokesman to-night emphasised that Britain was most anxious to improve the peacekeeping machinery, but further military commitments were absolutely impossible. While it was recognised that the attempt to find a formula satisfying France was extraordinarily difficult, there was always the possibility of obtaining a definition satisfactory to all concerned. The discussions were proceeding with this hope, and Article 1G was being closely examined.