GENOA CONFERENCE.

Grey River Argus, 27 May 1922, Page 5

GENOA CONFERENCE.

DISCUSSION IN COMMONS. GEORGE ON RUSSIA. j A. and N. Z. Cable Association] LONDON, May 25. Air Lloyd George. in the Common.*:. I on.lined the work of tlie Genoa (’on- I ferenev. wk-.-rr tin* discussion, he said.] marked by the greatest amity. Hr I duieniivd the cii'i-r: help Russia, pointing out that if <ht (••mntiy were ' J '<» ! to du-j ■*. . .Lu possessed j I nalUitil ic". uic s. while .e'igiibouring ! (<•<;.airy m>-se:scd the ti'chiienl skill ue- • cessury for armaments. • The Russian i no . ioiia ii>:>; ion talk was a>F humbug, as i p,-.- erm. of Russian proper;y wa ; ■cd. '1 hr p'opie were greater individualists than the British. Genoa had ■ li'-cmiipli hud great thiiig' ; . and he hoped tor a successful outcome oi the Hague deb b-'m t ions. I Mr Asquith said that v.liilst Genoa’s objects were admirable, its results were I dist ressingly meagre. It had not advanced th*' economic re-opening of Russia a single step. 1 Air Clynes said that the Labour Party • while differing from Air Lloyd George on many points regarding the Genoa Conference, admired his efforts to make it effective. In his speech on Genoa Conference, in tin.' House of Commons, Mr Lloyd George said he did not intend to say anything in reference to reparat ions er I Britian’s relations with France. The questions before the Genoa Conference were discussed with the greatest amity. . He proceeded to outline the work of the , various commissions. Without tht* assist- i ’ ance of the other 36 nations, hr said, it J A\as hopeless lor Russia, w hat ever its Go- j vriniiient did to extricate itself from ; the lit of, squalor and misery. There j i were several alternatives for dealing

before, ot' using force, but no one sug- j gusted that at Gonoa. The second was ; to leave her to her fate, until she chang ed her Government, but how could they insure Europe against the risks of the latter alt ernat ive .’ The Rnsso-German agreement showed the sort of peril that meant. Air Lloyd George said Germany . could not re-equip Russia cconomicaliy. : Hie ha*! not the capital. Thai was ; in the case Willi armaments, when they had ('very natural resource in one country ami every technical skill in the other. If the nations were driven to . despair, the British delegation realised i it was fur the peace ot’ the world, ‘ whatever they thought of the S«»viet ■ Government, that some arrangement I with Russia was necessary to help I<> ’ swell the volume ot’ trade' on which s*> many millions of people «lepende<l for daily bread, and to give a sense of stability and security to Europe. The Russian leaders realised they could not get credit from the west upon a . basis of confisention. and repudiation of debt. Mr Lloyd George said that with . regard to Russia’s pre-war revolution debts, they were prepared to compromise. The talk about nationalisation was all humbug. The Russians talked al»"ut the sacreduess of the great principle of the revolution, but. 95 per cent of the property in Russia was land. ‘‘Let ( thu Soviet trv (ojake it.” he concluded dramaticaliy; “It is as mucTi a peasant proprietary as if the tabs nau been writbi) oul! T’he *;reai mass of Russian people are more. individualistic

than are the people of this country.’’ The position of the European Powers was clearly stated in the Allied Cannes Resolutions which the Russians never assailed. The Hague Conference would be a practical discussion, of exports on the basis of the Allied Cannes rose lutions. He was hopeful of a successful outcome. THE TRUCE. Mean while, they had to consider what could be done to prevent conflict in Europe. Therefore a truce pad was embodied in a solemn declaration by all the Powers at Genoa. He was not going to say the Genoa effort would ultimately succeed, bul believed it had accomplished great things already. It Genua failed, the position of Europe would indeed be tragic. The British delegation wore proud they took a leading part in the upholding and lighting for high ideals, woolo Th always associated with the grave problem ol Genoa. A CRITIC. Air Asquith considered the results of the Genoa Conference were depressing ami dist ressingly mu gnu Its objects were admirable, but what were the nd results? Had we a<h anced one single step towards rhe regulation of the economic position of Rn ia and the rest of Europe. It had been relegated to the Hague, wlu're th-y would have to consider it with a clean slate. When the Conl’erencc rose we w in exactly the same position in regard to a re-open-ing uf oconomiu reatbons with Russia as on the. fn>l day of the Conference. They had ignored one thing, on which the real rc-eslnblisbnicnl of credit, and tree intercourse depended, which was the regulation of debts, and the making of generous remissions of our claims. Mr Lloyd (.corm '■.'dd that not a s:wj.'e >tep of any importance had been •taken throughout the .-on fcrem-e without the fullest consulta'ion with India’s and the Dominions’ delegates, all ot whom agreed, howe.ver much they might dislike the Soviet, that Europe was bound to make some ararngement with Rus; ia to enable that country to contribute towards the restoration of the world trade. The Empire’s whole delegation devoted its utmost strength daily

to trying to xvin a battle for the peate of the world. Lord Robert ('ceil said the greatest • lisadvant: ge from which the Genoa < 'onferunue sutler* *1 was the absence of America. If there were any pos- . sible chance of securing American participation at some other economic conf'Tunrc, it would be better to abandon 'flic Hague scheme. I Mr Asquith said the disadvantages . siiffer,ed by the conference were not only' j the abstention of America and the half- . hearted participation of France, but ; the real obstacle was that the subjects ; for discussion were already bound down , ! by previous decisions in regard to Euro- ! peau economic questions. Mr Ulynes said h<\ did not bl.’-me ; Erance for her attitude. They had ! guara’ntced her apparent, if illusory, benefits under the \ crsailles Treaty, ! and the question was whether they ; should boldlv say they had guarantee*! 1 more than they could deliver. Europe . was now more warlike, and was train- . ing more armed men that) before the war. They wanted a new policy from these cynferenecs. While Labour differed materially from the Prime Min ister <>n many of the points discussed at Genoa, it admired the wholehearted ' manner in which he had tried to make . ihconference efi*c*li\e. ’IL? hoped th*' Premier would continue his ci'forts Io make terms with Russia. After, a two hours’ general debat**, Air Lloyd George was on his feet again. I Lord Robert ('evil’s speech gave th" Premier an opportunity to make a lively I attack on the Government’s critics, i whom he described as always wanting to In- on good terms with France, ami were yet always opposing the French viewpoint. Lord Robert had talked about the old diplomacy, but, he would support anything new, dr old, if it wereagainst the Government. Air Asquith’s speech, he described as a series or poor, tilin jibes. Mr Worthington Evans closed the debate. lie described the Peace Pact as ; most solemn and impressive. 'The cun- i fercii'-e showed th-.t while the European Slates held steadfusliy to their in- ' dividual systems, they were not blind ! to the alls of li.He,-Ji i|y. and were prep.’ii'< I to alleviate nu.nian suli: ring. Mr Chamberlain in the House of Commons said the cost of the British delegation was approximately 7000.