WAR ON PEACE TERMS

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 December 1935, Page 7

WAR ON PEACE TERMS

WHY GOVT. CONSENTED “ULTIMATUM” FROM LAVAL [UY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, December 13. “The Times,” in a leading article, says: Neither good sense nor good faith requires that the British Government shall stand upon the terms, which should never have been put forward; and are now bound to fail; but both demand that they shall accept the League’s decision, and with it the plain verdict of British public opinion. The Government’s duty now, as before, is to help to the utmost in proving that aggression does not pay, and to maintain the League’s full rights and means of action to that end. The present proposals cannot possibly be reconciled with the obligations of the Covenant. They were bound to fail, and have, in fact, failed already. Any fresh peace efforts will have to be guided by this week’s-. exr perience, especially by a determined manifestation of public feeling which will long make it memorable. “The Times” admits that the proposals are not yet known, but it emphasises general opposition, including the Dominions to them. It points out that the basis for discussion that is sketched ou.t fajls to satisfy two of Britain’s essential points, namely, acceptability to Abyssinia and by the League. The “News-Chronicle”, expresses the opinion that Government circles regard the proposals as dead; and that they will be interred when the League Council meets on December 18. It adds: “Mr Eden’s speech at Geneva was tantamount to an invitation to the League to condemn the plan. M. Laval will be the chief mourner for this “illegitimate child,” as the peace plan has been nick-named.”

The “Manchester Guardian’s” political correspondent says: M. Laval virtually presented an ultimatum to Sir S. Hoare that France would' have nothing to do with oil Sanctions. He was convinced they would drive Signor Mussolini to desperation, and might even provoke an Italian attack on the British Fleet. M. Laval did not withdraw his promise of French' support in the event of such an attack, but he emphasised the techincal difficulties against preventing swift French aid. Therefore, Sir Samuel Hoare collaborated in producing settlement proposals satisfying, not the League, but Signor Mussolini.

OPPOSITION IN PARLIAMENT. LONDON, December 12. Opposition to Sir S. Hoare’s and M. Laval’s terms for .Italy continues to spread. Lord Davies will move in the House of Lords on December 18 a motion analogous to that sponsored by four Conservatives and two Liberals in the House of Commons, which seven more members of the House of Commons are now supporting. Sir Herbert Samuel strongly criticised the Government’s treatment of the position. “The Times’s”- Parliamentary correspondent says: The House of Commons will discuss the peace proposals probably on December 19. Although a decision will not be taken until there is some indication given of Geneva’s reception of the terms, it is expected that in view of the Opposition’s present temper, the debate will be on a vote of censure, which, however, will rally all the members of the Government to its side, despite their own anxieties and resentment. The Liberals have tabled a motion condemning the settlement as violating Abyssinia’s territorial integrity, political and economic independence in favour of a declared ’ aggressor, describing such settlement as “a betrayal of the League and an act of national dishonour.” Meanwhile, the Government’s supporters are hoping that the debate will dissipate the fog surrounding the Hore-Laval conversations, as members are receiving numerous protests from constituents concerning them.

NATIONAL INDIGNATION. (Recd. December 14, 9.30 a.m.) LONDON, December 13. Political observers declare that no issue for years has so stirred the country as the Government’s peace plan. Government supporters are receiving thousands of! letters from constituents. A Conservative representing a university, reports that he has received 400 letters in a single mail, almost all insisting that the proposals violated the programme of support to the League, on which the election was fought. “The Times’s” Parliamentary correspondent records a case of a Member of the Cabinet whose post bag contained an intimation from a lifelong Conservative that he would not have supported the Government at the election, if he had dreamt they would have put their names to the Paris proposals. FRENCH OPPOSITION. PARIS, December 12. Opposition to the peace proposals is developing in the Chamber of Deputies, where M. Cot (ex-Minister) tabled an interpellation as to the Government’s policy, which condemns giving Italy what she would be incapable of obtaining by conquest, also for offering Abyssinia a harbour which would damage the trade of the French port Djibouti and French economic interests. M. Blum and two Socialists presented an interpellation contending that M. Laval was aiming at paralysing Sanctions, and, moreover, at substituting for them territorial benefits for an aggressor. M. Herriot is reported to be disgusted with the proposals.

“MONSTROUS AND CRIMINAL” (Rec. December -4, 11 a.m.) PARIS, December 13. “L’Echo De Paris” says: M. Herriot at a meeting of the Socialist Executive, described the peace proposals as monstrous and criminal, adding that the League would emerge humiliated and smashed. ITALIAN “BENEVOLENCE.” LONDON, December 13. The Rome correspondent of “The Times” says: According to the Italian spokesman, Signor Mussolini amf his coadjutors are studying the proposals with “requisite benevolence”; but they may ask for explanations. In any case, exaggerated optimism would be misplaced.

TERMS OUTLINED. ' TERRITORY FOR ITALY. J (Recd. December 14, 10.30 a.m.) PARIS, December 13. I The peace proposals are .published and largely confirm the forecasts. Eastern Tigre is ceded to Italy, and Abyssinia is to retain South Aussa and territory necessary to give an outlet to the sea, preferably Assab. There is rectification of the Ogaden frontier, presumably giving Italy a large slice as far as Warandar, and thence up towards the frontier of British Somaliland. \ ABYSSINIAN REJECTION. GENEVA, December 13. Ethiopia has telegraphed to the League that the proposals are not acceptable, and suggests that the question be submitted to the Assembly. MEDITERRANEAN DANGER. MUSSOLINI’S ‘GAMBLER’S THROW’ (Recd. December 14, Noon.) LONDON, December 13. The “Guardian’s” political correspondent expresses the opinion that S. Hoare was terribly weak, in not forc,ing M. Laval to go to Geneva and' declare before the world that France was unwilling to proceed further with Sanctions. It was an ' astonishing blunder to allow himself to be persuaded to accept proposals of a France virtually opting for Italy against Britain. The “Guardian’s” diplomatic correspondent says: The disclosures of M. Laval’s warning ’to Sir S. Hoare that France’s aid in the Mediterranean must necessarily' be tardy, throws into prominence the conjecture in the Commons lobbies that, in desperation over oil, Mussolini will probably risk a gambler’s throw and rain from the air bombs on Malta, where the manufacture of gas masks to supply the whole population was long since ordered. The “Sun-Herald” says: Those who support Sir S. Hoare’s action point out that he was unable to call M. Laval’s bluff because he was assured that rejection of the proposals would result in Italy attacking the British Fleet in the Mediterranean, at a ihoment when there would be virtually ho assistance from France. This, it is pointed out, would automatically involve not only Britain but also Australia, owing to the presence of her two cruisers. The British Government and the Dominions’ representatives have been steadily more anxious for some weeks regarding the effectiveness of oil Sanctions, owing to the apprehension of the inadequacy of a guarantee of French naval support.

DESSIE BOMBINGS. GENEVA, December 13. The Italian reply to the Abyssinian protest regarding the Dessie bombing, denies that buildings bearing the Red Cross were touched, and protests against Abyssinia abusing the emblem.