FRENCH PLAN for European Security

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 101, 9 April 1936, Page 5

FRENCH PLAN for European Security

A SUPREME BODY Control of Armaments and Treaties ECONOMIC ORGANISATION GERMAN TERRITORIAL AIMS <By Tslsgrsph-Press Asia.—Copyright.) (Received 9, 1.10 p.mj PARIS, April 8. The French reply to Herr Hitler's memorandum, comprised in a communique, is a thirteen-page reply to the German contentions, also a declaration containing the French proposals. The reply affirms equality of rights and respect for international law, and asserts the principle that no nation can attain hegemony in Europe. It proposes permanent control and execution of treaties by a European commission and that the extent of limitation of armaments of each State should be decided by a two-thirds majority of the European commission or such other organisation as the League Council decides. The reply states that if mutual assistance in the universal framework of the League at the moment is difficult to put into operation quickly and efficaciously, regional accord should be sought. Moreover, even if Europe appears too vast to apply collective security by mutual assistance and disarmament, the task of oragnising regional ententes within the European framework remains. This organisation should be entrusted to a European commission within the League structure. Associated States, in order to accomplish the duty of mutual assistance, shall specially and permanently keep a trained army and naval and air forces at the disposal of the European commission or the League Council. All treaties at present existing, besides those which may be concluded in future between European Powers, shall be submitted to the European commission, which will be able by a two-thirds majority to pronounce them incompatible with a European pact or regional pact. The economic section of the reply states that partial or total Customs unions would substantially improve the economic situation. The necessity for a common reserve of raw materials and territory for expansion for surplus European production should lead to the revision of certain colonial statutes from the viewpoint of equality of economic rights. A special section of the European commission should consider economic questions as soon as political security was re-established. Nothing in these proposals shall be considered contrary to the League Covenant. Final acceptance presupposes adherence to the League. The refusal of any State to join the plan shall not prevent other States from accepting it. The reply refers to the possibility of Germany’s raising the question of Austria, Danzig and Memel, the restitution of colonies and the revision of European frontiers, and says that Germany should reply clearly about her intentions regarding them. It emphasises that the German attitude toward prohibition of fortification of the Rhineland must be the touchstone deciding whether Germany is prepared to admit the principle of collective security France notes that Germany replies with suggestions quite insufficient to consolidate the peace of Europe. France fears that Germany will •gain secede from the League if her colonial aspirations are not satisfied.