DISAGREEMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 19, 5 January 1923, Page 5

DISAGREEMENT

Failure at Paris INDEPENDENT FRENCH ACTION. BRITAIN FEARFUL OF DISASTER. (By Cable.--Prej»a Association.—Copyright.] (Received 5, 9.5 a.m.) London, Jan. I. The ‘‘Daily Mail’s” Paris correspondent says there is ii»» illusion in the minds of the British ..linisters regarding the speedy breaking up of the conference. One of the British delegates stated The main object now must be to minimise as far as wo can the breach of the Entente. Our friendship is no less sincere. Though we are con vinced the French plan is disastrous no doubt remains that France will proceed with independent action. We must formally protest as we are firmly convinced that the destruction of German credit will have very serious consequences.

The newspaper “Eclair,’’ discussing the reparations discussion, criticises England’s narrow egotism, and adds: “There is a ditch between England and Franco; it is not France who will cross it.”—(A. and N.Z.) CONFERENCE AT AN END. (’OMPLETE DISAGREEMENT. (Received 5, 8.55 a.m.) Vancouver, Jan. 4. A United Press message states that the Premiers’ Conference in Paris ended in a complete disagreement.—(A. and N.Z.) VITAL DIFFERENCES OF OPINION MR. BON AR LAW’S REPLY. , Paris, Jan. 3. When the Premiers’ Conference opened M. Poincare made a two hours’ speech explaining why the British plan was unacceptable.

Mr. Bonar Law, replying, said ho would detail the British objections to the French plan to-morrow. Commenting on M. Poincare’s criticisms, the British Premier said he was perfestly willing that Belgium’s priority should stand. He did not think the British scheme violated the treaty, but be would take a legal opinion on the matter. He did attach importance to the French objection to a German chairman for the proposed commission for the control of German finances. He agreed with M. Poincare that there were real and vital differences between the British and French viewpoints. It would be better to face the reality. It was useless to make an impracticable, patched up agreement. France’s proposed committee in Berlin would in reality become a taxing authority, which would be very dangerous. France proposed even during the first year of the moratorium to exact from Germany the'cost of the army of occupation and reparations in kind totalling over £70,000.000, which would inflate and not stabilise the mark and prevent the balancing of the budget. Mr. Bonar Law said there were only two alternatives facing the Allies, either to attempt to take something now or restore Germany’s credit. According to the best opinion, Germany had collapsed industrially owing to the inflation of the mark. The Italian and French gold deposit in London, to the taking up of which M. Poincare objected, was sent to the United States several years ago to pay for munitions. If the gold was to return to England, France and Italy would have to raise the necessary money to pay for it.

M. Poincare, in a statement prior to the conference, said: “I shall refuse to allow the French plan to be destroyed by a debate on the details. Either there shall be a vote on the French plan as it stands or we shall agree to disagree. We have ‘ made every possible concession in order to avoid wounding British feelings.” It is learned that M. Theunis, the Belgian Prime Minister, declined to act as conciliator, feeling that the great divergence of the French and' English plans made an open rupture almost inevitable.

“Le Temps” to-night said; “The British reparations policy survived the change of Ministry. When Britain submits project which brings I us within four years face to face with a ruined France and a re-established Germany, how can we believe in British diplomacy; The bonds which existed in wartime have vanished. The Continental Allies can only count on their own strength to safeguard tfyeir security and independence. Let them think of the future.”—(A. and N.Z.)

THE CONFERENCE DEAD. FRANQp BENT ON THE SANCTIONS London, Jan. 3. The “Daily Chronicle’s” Paris correspondent says: “So far as any useful purpose is concerned the conference may be regarded as dead. The French rejection of the British scheme was immediate and brutal. Having hitherto regarded Mr. Lloyd George as the cause of all trouble the press is now blaming Sir John Bradbury and Lord d’Aberdon. One newspaper describes the scheme as ‘Made in. America.’ France’s fundamental objection to the course is that the plan destroys the whole pagoda of sanctions. Further occupations are intended to divide Rhineland and the Ruhr from the. rest of Germany, so permanently dividing and weakening her.’’ The “Daily Express’s” Pans correspondent says France regards as the only ray of hope that the effect of a breakdown of the conference on the Lausanne Conference would be so grave as to impel both France and Britain to aveid it. —(A. and N.Z.)

BERLIN OPINION. BRITISH SCHEME" REASONABLE. Berlin, Jan. 2. Political circles, while criticising Mr Bonar Law’s scheme in detail, regard it as a reasonable base for negotiations. as it recognises economic facts. M. Poincare’s scheme is unanimously condemned as an attempt to enslave Germany, indicating that M. Poincare does not want a settlement, but merely the destruction of Germany. It is believed here that the only hope. lies in America supporting the British solution. —(A. and N.Z.) AMERICAN DETACHMENT. CONTENT WITH SUGGESTIONS AND FEELERS. New York, Jan. 3. The “New York Times’s” Washington correspondent states that no further indication will be made by the United States Government to 4 he Paris Premiers’ Conference concerning reparations. The United States will rest on its prior informal feelers* ard suggestions, contained in Mr Hughes’s speech. It is felt these were sufficient to indicate that the United States hoped the suggestions for a fact-find-ing commission might be adopted by the Premiers if they are unable to agree upon any of their own plans. The United States will not press its suggestion and does not intend to issue an invitation to the Allies to appoint an expert commission, but should they do so at their own accord the United States will , gladly accept an invitation to appoint American members of the commission.—(A. and N.

ALLIES’ GOLD DEPOSITS. BRITISH PROPOSAL RESENTED. FRENCH PUBLICISTS ON THE SITUATION. (Received 5, 10.10 a.m.) Paris, Jan. 4. “Le Matin” says Mi. Bonar Law’s declarations regarding the dispatch of Allied gold deposits to America caused a most unpleasant sensation in political and financial circles. The gold was not the property of the French Government, but of the Bank of France, and should not be regarded as a pledge or security. The “Petit Journal” comments thatyesterday’s explanations resulted in the beginnings a rapprochement. A change of atmosphere was noticeable. M. Millet, writing in the “Petit Parisien,” says: “It is still possible that Mr. Bonar Law’s detailed reply .will put a fresh aspect on the debate; nevertheless no agreement can be concluded. The Tesult will be that France and Belgium will be unable to avoid joint military occupation of Germany’s territory.”

M. Sauerwein, writing in “Le Matin,” says: “Mr. Bonar Law seems to regard the rupture between England and France unmoved. Hitherto he has made no effort to dissipate legitimate French apprehensions on essential points. Mr. Bonar La-w has privately expressed the opinion that a rupture was inevitable. He knows France will be morally forced under the penalty of losing for ever all hope of repairing her ruined lands to enforce productive guarantees in German territory. Mr. Bonar Law. while protesting against occupation of the Ruhr in order to conciliate the Labour Partv. wishes to maintain the Entente on the question of the Near East.” g| M. Sauerwein protests against this* inconsistency. He points out that loyal assistance is being given by M. Barrere to Lord Curzon on Turkish matters, and devoted support is being accorded to Herr Clino by Lord D’Abernon.— (A. and N.Z.)