PEACE OF EUROPE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 4 February 1925, Page 7

PEACE OF EUROPE.

A CHANGED FRANCE. Lieutenant-Colonel llepington discussing the “Peace of Europe,” after his journeys iu Western Europe, writes in the Daily Telegraph: ■ since 1919 the relations of England and France had steadily deteriorated. The two countries, or at least their rulers, had regarded the situation from different points of view, and while France thought that we. had gained all we wanted in the war and had let France down over Reparations, .we thought France was unreasonable, bellicose, and almost Imperialistic. We both wanted peace and security, but had different ideas how to obtain them. AYe said a lot of hard things to each other, and the old cordiality of the war time perceptibly cooled. There were faults on both sides, mainly due to the almost insuperable difficulty of an Englishman to understand the French and of a Frenchman to understand the English. It is not pleasant to look back to this period. Let us leave it behind us. “No man can deny the good work ol Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in helping to create a better atmosphere when he took office, but the main foundation of the better relations, now happily reestablished, has been the completo change in French opinion, which has made things possible which were impossible before. COMPLETE CHANGE IN FRANCE. “The French people a few months ago had at least become enervated, and almost alarmed by a sense of their isolation, and by their inability to secure reasonable advantages by the course on which M. Poincare had launohed them. Reparation, on the scale desired by Frenchmen to repay the enormous sums laid out by their devasted provinces, receded into the distance, in spite of the occupation of the Ruhr. Security was not attained, and though Belgium was in line with French policy and almost necessarily followed it, she was not very happy, because she preferred that her security should rest on the historic twin pillars of h Franco-British assurance. There were French understandings of a defensive character with Poland and the Little Entente, but, while these were claims on France, their precise value to the security of France was uncertain, and the clouds over the Rhine remained dark. FRANCE TAKES A NEAV COURSE. “Something was wrong. The State finances of France were in a condition which alarmed the whole country. It became obvious to thinking Frenchmen that a military domination could not be based upon continuing deficits, while, looking into the future, prudent souls asked whether military superiority over Germany was not an insoluble proposition for a people who could scarcely keep up the present numbers of their own population against a vengeful people who were ceaselessly augmenting. From these sentiments there came about an earnest desire among the French people to take a new course and settle with England, and the largest share of applause at the last French elections met those who preached the policy of acting in accord with us. Not only the peasants and the petits fonctionaries, but the bourgeoisie generally, became won to the idea of an English accord, in fact to a real Entente Cordiale. WHY M. HERRIOT ARRIVED.

“M. Her riot and his majority are the outcome of these sentiments, and they are accepted, even by French authorities not in the Government,, as representing the present spirit \ of France. The Herriot Cabinet set itself in a determined manner to liquidate the affair of the Ruhr. No doubt the French Premier, and his opposite number in England, were admirably served by the Dawes plan, but we must not lose sight of the fact that M. Herriot consented to serious sacrifices when he took part in the London Conference and destroyed in a few days the legend of French Imperialism. He presented the views of a France which had changed her mind and had become resolutely pacific. It is not certain that we have yet shown full appreciation of the fact. The collaboration of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and M. Herriot was a fortunate occurrence, and we must neither of us lose the advantage gained by that collaboration which was founded on real desire for a lasting peace.

GENEVA AND THE PROTOCOL. “Geneva and the Protocol followed.” adds Colonel Repington. “The latter is a pacific document which threatens no one but evildoers. There is a great deal in the Protocol which is good and must not be lost, even if the whole of it does not stand closer investigation. The frank acceptance of obligatory arbitration without any reservations on matters of ‘honour and vital interests,’ which in the past have rendered so many efforts fruitless, was a great step in advance. The definition of the aggressor in a conflict was another. There was no new principle established, but there was better definition of procedure.

“A sense of security can only follow the acceptance of obligatory arbitration when a long experience has shown the world that all people accept this arbitration, and that the machinery proposed hv the League attains it s object. The League cannot' disseminate confidence by words. Acts alone count. How can war, which is the history of the world, be ended by a few words and phrases ?

“Armaments will very gradually disappear when obligatory arbitration has proved its value in critical cases over a long series of years. Then people will not burden thefiiselves with useless and expensive machinery which events show to be needless. ’’