WAR OBLIGATION

Grey River Argus, 22 June 1925, Page 5

WAR OBLIGATION

IN THE PACT London Press Objections (Received June 21 al 5.5 p.in.j LONDON, June 20. The “Daily Chronicle,” in discussing the proposed arbitration treaties by Germany with France and Belgium, quotes a section of the French Note dealing therewith. Both treaties are to apply to all disputes, it says, and ‘‘if one of the parties, refusing to submit a dispute to arbitration, or to carry out an arbitral award, resorts to hostile measures,” the guarantee under which Britain is bound to act would come into immediate operation. The ‘‘Chronicle'’ I'oinments: ‘‘lt appears, from .Mr Chamberlain’s dispatch on May 28th, that the British Government does not conceive the guarantee as obliging Britain to resort to force anywhere except in 'the guaranteed Rhinel:?nd area; but, in practice, if wo had to take action, it would be almost im_ possible to thus limit its sphere.” The “Chronicle” concludes by viewing the scheme as a whole with profound seep tic ism. The proposed Pact contina. s to evoke the strongest criticism. The ‘‘Daily Express” prints special cables from Melbourne, Christchurch, Ottawa and Capetown, generally opposing the committment. 'l'he “Daily Express” editorially argues: “The Paet really is unilateral, because it compels Britain to fight on the side of France whatever the justice or occasion of the conflict. If Germany invades the demilitarise*., zone, Britain, ipso facto, is at war with Germanv, but it does not follow that Britain would be at war with Franco if she crossed the zone in an assault on Germany.” The “Daily Telegraph's” diplomatic correspondent says: “There is talk of appointing a committee of jurists for the purpose of defining what constitutes aggression and an aggressor. SOUTH AFRICA’S ATTITUDE. \GAINST FOREIGN COMMITTMENTS. (Reeeived June 21 at 5.5 p.m.) CAPETOWN, June 20. A Parliamentary paper containing communications between the J’rei/iier and the Governor-General on the Geneva Protocol lias been issued. T’he Ministers regret that they are unable to recommend the acceptance of the Protocol to Parliament. The Protocol would only make it more difficult for the nations outside, the League to join it. Lt would be impossible to calculate the obligations accruing therefrom. Further, the interests of South Africa demanded that no internation tl obligations should be entered into en-

tailing participation or interference by the Union in matters not, or only remotely, concerning her, whereby her real proper interests might eventually be jeopardised. The publication of this do<umen now is regarded as significant in view of the discussions on the new Security Pact and as an indication of the I n_ ion Government’s attitude thereon. SOUTH AFRICAN PAPER’S GON. TENTTON. CAPETOWN, June IS Commenting on the Angio.Freueh Security Paet, the “Cape Times” says: A word of warning may be given to the British commentators who are apt to assume that the attitude of British sympathisers in the Dominions will be one of automatic acquiescence. The thesis that it is of unqnes. tionable interest to the Dominions to join the British Government in such an agreement with France is the very opposite of the truth. There is a very strong body of opinion in the Dominions which is convinced the tendency of the British Foreign Office tr be intensely preoccupied with European affairs,' is a disastrous tendency from the point of view of the true welfare of the British Empire. It is ludicrous to say that the security of France is the main interest of the various com. nmnities of the Empire. Mr Cham, berlain should realise that opinion in South Africa, without distinction o* race, is strongly against any such commitnient.