SECURITY PACT

Grey River Argus, 20 June 1925, Page 5

SECURITY PACT

FRENCH PROPOSALS In Note to Germany (Received June 19 at 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, June 18. The Frci-ich reply to Germany commends the ('jcrinan offer to com Jude arbitration treaties, similar to that brt.weeli (ierina.ny and France, \\i~i all the s'tates so disposcd 4 and the Note says: “The Allied Governmenl. may even consider that, in Khe absence of such agreements between Germany and those of her ne'ghbours who, though not. parlies to the Rhine land Pact, are signatories, the peace of Europe could not be completelyguaranteed. ’’

The reply adds, however, that the Allied States, under '.he Covenant o’, the League of Nations and the Peace Treaties, have rig Hts and obligation'* which they cannot possibly give up or surrender. (This presumably ’s a reference to tho Demilitarized zone). The reply proceeds that a genera guarantee of security for the maintenance of peace cannot be complete ly assured unless all ‘the agreements aimed at come into force simultaneously. These agreements, inconformity with the Covenant, ought m be registered by the League of Nations, and placed under its auspices FRENCH STIPULATIONS. F() R 11 Hl N E LAN D AG RE EM INT (Received June 19 at 8.-15 p.m.) LONDON, June 18. A white paper has been issued containing the French reply to the Germain Security Pad proposals, welcomes tho German step, but points out that it is important to know the views of the German Governmeitit oil certain questions, because ai preliminary agreement concerning them appears to be necessary as the basis of future negotiations. It rm phasises that agreement is < nly conceivable if Gcrmainy enters the heagne of Nations. Moreover, the search tor a guarantee for securi-tv cannot involve any modifications of the peac. l treaties. 'l'he reply, referring to the suggested pact between the Powers interested in tho Rhine, says that those States must clearly include Belgium, which is not mentioned in tho reference t<> the suggested arbitration treaty guaranteeing a peacclul settlement of juridical and political ionflicts. The reply says that, as between France and Geimany, such a tre;'<t\ ought to apply to all disputes, am not leave room for coercive action, unless specially provided for, sinn lar to it,he Belgo-German treaty . is also necessary that the observaince of these treaties shall be assured by tho guarantee of the Powers parti'! paring in the Rhineland Pact, so as to bring the guarantees into immediate operation if one party ref’ • to submit a dispute to arbitration, or to carry out an arbitral aw.-ri'. and resorted to hostile measures? The reply adds that Fnihee. welcome the co-operation of the United States. It concludes that France will be glad to receive a German reply which will permit of lhr opening of negotiations with th * ' ject of concluding agreements con stituting new and effectual gmiran tees of peace. BRITISH ATTITUDE SET FORTH DETAILS OF FRENCH VIEWS. NEGOTIATIONS DETAILED. (Received J tune 19 at 10.15 a. in.) LONDON, June 19. The French reply to Germany makes it clear that the guaranteeing by the signatories of the Versailles’ Treaty of arbitration treaties beyond those affecting the Rhineland will be optional. The published correspohdense shows that Mr Chamberlain on May 18, stressed the British Government’s position as being different from that of the Continental Powers, in view of with its world.wide responsibilities. Its Government was bounds to regard tho question of participation in the treaties outside the Rhineland from a different point of view to that of other Powers, whose interests lay mainly or exclusively in Europe.

FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER. M. Bri.'vnd, on June 6 replied: “We realise the fact that the constituent elements of the British Empire are scattered throughout the world, and that this loads His Majesty’s Government to limit its undertakings on the European Continent to those they consider essential, even when their interests are distinguishable from those of Continental Powers. ” M Briand further said: “We fully understand that the refusal to bind themselves in advance, except concerning the Bhineland, means only that the British Government without disinterest, ing themselves in what might happen at other points, merely reserve liberty of exariiinatibn and decision.” Mr Chamberlain, on Juno G, informed M Briand that the French Government was right in assuming that a Rhineland pact could not operate as a barrier to prevent France taking action in -I ease of a violation as between Germany and Poland, or between Germany and Czechoslovakia. No surprise has been expressed _at the text of the French reply, which fullv confirms the Press forecasts. The reply meets witli a cautious, critical reception from the Press of London generally, but the “Morning Rost ” in many unqualified terms, approves of it, and proceeds: ‘We hope that the Dominions will grasp tho fact that tlm proposals instead of involving the Empire in European entanglement, tallv relieves it from them It is (when Europe is restless that the Em Lire must be on its guard, but Europe

at peace needs little watching, and this pad is intended to give .Europe peace. The “Morning Post’’ also says that Mr Lloyd George, in his dispatch to M. Briand, at the time of the Cannes Conference, recalled how, at the previous Imperial Conference, the Dominion statesmen were prepared to come to the aid of France if she were again attacked bv Germany. Surely then, it says, they cannot refuse to support an agreement to which Germany herself is a party? LONDON. June 18. The “Daily Telegraph” says: Whether the terms of the reply can be regarded as completely satisfactory from the British point of view is not quite clear. The possibility of a misunderstanding over the question of independent sanctions is not removed, nor is the operation of arbitration treaties brought so completely within the League’s sphere of action as had been hoped. The obligation to go to war with‘out! rec'ou.Tse to the League would arise under certain circumstances. “The Daily Herald’s” diplomatic correspondent fastens on to the aforementioned sentence in Briand’s des_ nnfeh. in which he savs: "We fully understand” and ending “decision.” This, the correspondent savs. reveals *hnt them had been verbal explanations given to France, in addition to those contained in the published correspondence. The “Dnilv Express” hvpothetieallv considers the cose of a possible conflict between Poland and Germany. France, it savs. would in that case iustant.lv claim the right to move Loons across Gormanv to assist Poland. Tn n flash. France r, nd Germanv would be nt war. A combo t between French and German unite on the western front would obviouslv the disappear, once of the demilitarized 7ono. The Gemma troops in course of such a sfruo-o-ln. would certainly mnl-ro such a movement westwards as woolfl constitute a broach of the western pact Vhnronnnn Britain would bo nf war wifl, Gnrmonv. whether she willed it or nnf Thn nditorinl oonrbidos:—“Thi«

is in npo'Oemnnt to n war poet to which the British notion and the Do. minions would never agree.” BRITISH DEBATE. LONDON, June 1.9. In tho House of Commons, Mr Baldwin announced that the debate on the Security Pact would be taken on the Foreign Office estimates, next Wednesday. GERMAN FEELING. BERLIN, June 19. Il is stated ithcro is not likely to be any decision regarding tho Pact Note for some weeks. Official circles are reserved, but regard it as generally most satisfactory, though Dr Stresemann is known to entertain cerAaiin objections to the terms <>i the proviso which lays it down that Germany must become a member ol the League of Nations before 'he Pact comes into force. (Received June 19 at 5.30 p.m.) (Reuter). LONDON, June 17. In the House of Commmis, Mr Amery was asked a question as to whether the Government would undertake not to commit Britain to any liability to embark in hostilities in Europe, without Securing the general concurre-nce of the Dominions to the terms of such, liability. . Mr Amery, in reply, said that the Dominions would be kept in the clos esit touch with the negotiations. He did not think the general principle involved in this question could be best dealt With by a question and answer.