PACT OF PEACE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 12 September 1927, Page 5

PACT OF PEACE

ABOLISHING WAR DECISION OF THE LEAGUE. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION. FOR. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. K* CA HLB PEES:* ASSOC IA I’IUN JOPY HIGH - GENEVA. Sept. 10. The agitations and 'heart-burnings of the past few days over Poland’s intentions disappeared at the late afternoon .session of the Assembly, when M. SokaL presented the actual resolution. Its wording has undergone many jurists of various nationalities having taken a hand in drafting, amending and re-drafting it. Last night's form was accepted earlier in the day by the “Bi" Three” —Sir Austen Clhamberlain, M. Rriand and Dr. Stre.sema.nn. It was altered again at the instance of Warsaw by the inclusion of an appeal to members of the League to conclude pacts of .non-aggression. These are equally disliked by Great Britain and France. The former, as explained previously, because they might be the beginning of a movement which would eventually enlarge her present obligations, particularly in the event of Russian 'aggression against some member of the League, The declaration was as under: “The Assembly, realising its solidarity, does not intend an international community, but is Inspired by a. firm will to maintain peace, recognising that- wars of aggression must never serve as a means of settleing ditterences.. Believing a solemn 'renuu.n elation of .all war will create an atmosphere of general confidence favourable to the progress of disarmament, the Assembly declares : “(I) All war is to remain prohibited. ‘‘(2) All pacific means must be employed for the settlement of disputes, no'matter what their nature, arising among States. . “(3) Members of the League are under an obligation to conform with these principles.” The invitation in the earlier draft to conclude pacts of non-aggression is eliminated.

GERMANY ACCEPTS. COURT OF ARBITRATION OF THE LEAGUE. MOST IMPGdTAN L DECISION. GENEVA, Sept, 11. Reflections ui>ou the events of yesterday produce the impressions that Dr. unconditional acceptance on behalf of Germany or _ the optional clauses of the League Court was far and away the most important event of the present Assembly. Its full .significance was hardly realised last night. Dr. Stresema.no used stage management, making 'bis declaration as a dramatic concluding*climax. It was contained in an incidental paragraph of his speech and the point wa.s somewhat overlooked owing to its delivery in rapid German which is understood by few of the delegates, but to-day the announcement is recognised as a step of firsLclass national importance. He emphasised that the Locarno agreements were not outside the League. It was precisely the conclusion of these agreements' which had brought Germany into thei League. It was inco reprehensible that doubts should be expressed whether Locarno covered all the nations concerned or only some of them. The Locarno agreement were a practical application in a special form of the main fundamental ideas of the League. He went on to express his belief that a solemn declaration of the nations against war would not be valueless. Among the discordant voices which had' recently a,risen were the voices of responsible statesmen determining to abolish violence and aggression, which would soon give a clear lead. Dr. Stresemann concluded with the important, announcement that he intended. during the present session, to sign clauses of the Court of Arbitration of the League. This means the compulsory acceptances of the Court’s decision in any dispute between na tions who 'have not signed the optiona clauses.

LAST CLOTJDS REMOVED. GVI. Rriand. declared Dr. Stresemaim’s speech removed the last clouds. France and Germany were now able to meet openly and discuss the most delicate question which had previously seemed inconceivable. Some people- seeking * profit from the production or conflict and dissension were aiming at the ru.ptuer of the League, but all members of the League belonged to one family, working for universal peace. France moie than ever favoured the obligatory jurisdiction of arbitration. M. Briand asked whether public discussions on disarmament helped tire cause of peace when legislators were busy reorganising military forces. They must consider public fee ing. It wa.s useless to eny there was no means of security for the execution of the Ileague’s recommendations. Nobody expected to reach the goal in one spurt. It required an .act of faith, and all must make the same effort, for if war broke out all would be dragged in. Commending the Polish proposals, M. Briand said such declarations were not in vain. Indeed, they were required by the nations.' Transgressors would have to account for ’themselves before the •tribunal of the yorld’.s conscience. Dr. Shiiesomann’s speech w.ns noble and . courageous. M. Biiaml declared the prinoipl? of arbitration was progressing, as evidenced bv Dr. Stresemann’s acceptance of compulsory arbitration. France had equally accepted arbitration. The. dogs of war had been unleashed in. the recent Grero-Rulgarin.il conflict, but when the League had ordered suspension, both parties had honourably obeyed. This alone justified the exist'nee of the League.

AUSTRALIA AND COMPULSORY

0- ARBITRATION. Senator Sir George Pearce followed with a lengthv speech. He outlined Australia’s attitude and said she was most keenly interested in all proposals making for disarmament and pence. Tie declared that the Ixsague must not he. stampeded into hasty decisions. Nothing was moil? likelv to lessen confidence in the League than vacillation in the pursuit of peace or a desire to please passing phases of public opinion, or to satisfy the demand for the .sensational and dramatic. ’Hie presence of representative® of ex-enemy nations, all honestly and sincerely seeking disarmament and peace, was a miracle. Referring to the proposals to reconsider the protocol, he said the lack of confidence in Vhe protoccul had caused serious doubt and misgivings. Austra-

lia was inexperienced in international diplomacy, but had had practical experience •of compulsory arbitration, which was the main principle of the protocol. The term ‘‘compulsory arbitration” itself con tern olatea ill-will in a dispute and force. While he was not prepared to say that industrial arbitration in Australia had failed, he, could not say it could be classed as an unqualified •success. The League’s main aim should not be the settlement of disputes, but the prevention of differences developing into disputes requiring intervention either by the League or by The Hague Court, ‘and the encouragement of settlements by friendly negotiations without resorting to the League. Australia felt the protocol would extend the danger of driving disputants into hostile camps as industrial, arbitration had done in Australia. Let the League earnestly pursue disarmament by agreement'and success would come. At the tail end of the evening session came. M. Scialoja’s address condemning pessimism concerning the League’s future, and pointing out that the failure, of the naval conference could not be attributed to the League,

BR-ITAIN’S GUARANTEE OF FRONTIER. RELATION TO THE EMPIRE. SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN’S. WARNING. GENEVA, Sept, 11. Sir Austen Chamberlain, addressing the Assembly, said no country had done so much to guarantee the frontiers of other countries as Britain in guaranteeing the frontiers of France, Germany and Belgium, and she would keep hei; pledges as faithfully 'as she did to Belgium in 1914. Could not othi?r nations do a.s much before pressing Britain to go further and in so doing bring together two other nations regarding . each other wi th suspicion and fear? Sir Austen warned M. Bloklaind that it would 'be impossible to fake up the principles of the protocol Without reopening die troubled debates before there was anv indicatin that it eyas necessary for an alteration of mine, thereon. Britain could not guarantee all the frontiers; it would disrupt the Empire, His ’oyalty to the League was profound, but loyalty to the othpi league, namely, the Empire, came first.

He invploi-ed the Assembly to have confidence in the Covenant, in the delegates and in themselves. If the Assembly piled sanction upon sanction it might make its house a living tomb. To-day’® impossibilities might be achievable to-morrow. The League was a sturdy sapling and eventually the nations might .assemble under its protection as beneath the shadow of a mighty oak. M. Soka.l’s motion, though not new. was welcomed because it resolved to eschew the path of war. Sir Austen agreed with M. Lambro. who denied that the Great Powers were, withdrawing from the Council of the Assembly and the decisions* belonging to it. The failure of the naval conference provided a lesson for the future. Britain had proved l>v her deeds that slit earnest- v desired a real reduction oi armaments.

Roga u n<j arbitration, the Empire was a community of free nations unable alwavs to accept obligations readily undertakabb by a .homogeneous State Just before the adjournment., the Dutch delegation amended M. Var. R’oklnnd’s motion demanding p restudy of underlying principles to a simpler one, an acceptable and mou? harm ess motion asking for a third commission whereto it will refer the re-study of the question of .security disarm ament and arbitration, without mentioning the protocol, so it foolts as though the long-drawn fight lyqtiired in 1924 to scotch the protocol will not need a repetition.

GERMANY AND ARBITRATION CONVENTION. GENEVA, Sept. 0. M. Briarnl addressing the. journalists." mad"- one of the greatest speeches in hi.s career. He paid a tribute to the reciprocal friendliness of Geneva’s atmosphere. Though the work of the league seemed slow, the power of peace wotild become epidemic. Sir Austen Chamberlain, eloquently sneaking in French, said that he was pleased at the adoption of M. Briand’s advice. Dr. Stresemaon advocated rp-ace and disarmament, and announced, lamidst app ause. Germany’s willingness to sign the option convention on -bitration. There eauld be no spirit of peace while there w?re occupied territories.