RUSSIANS REPLY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 15 May 1922, Page 5

RUSSIANS REPLY.

LONG AND SERIOUS DEBATE. T MR LLOYD GEORGE'S PROPOSALS. GENOA, May 13. The first commission had a long and . serious debate on the Russian reply. Mr Lloyd George said the Russian ( -'.answer was provoking and unsatisfac- •- tory, and typical of the diplomacy which was always introduced in argumentative documents at times when - they were really trying to do business. | However, in its substance there was ] room to come to some arrangement. Everyone had differences with public - -opinion, and it was not right for other . statesmen to criticise them too severely. To break on the document would be very serious for Europe and Asia, he ;added. If we sent the Russians back to their great population, in the grip of famine and pestilence, they would feel the door of hope shut on them with a -*clang, and no.one could doubt the fierce presentment which would ensue, and which would be a menace not only to Russia, but to the peace of the world. He was certain the Russians felt the meed of credits and new conditions on which could be obtained. He " begged%ieople to regard the position tfrom a "practical standpoint, and not make the most of the clash of principle "between two antagonistic systems. He therefore proposed they should, in i^ply to the Russians, accept the sug;§|sted mixed commission or commis*.sions, which wpuld deal with the three ■ "questions of private property, debts and •credits. It was essential the commis---sions should T)e mixed; another meeting «of the London experts would be a waste • >of time. One thing, however, was es- •. eential, and that was the commissions -could not work in an atmosphere of smenace and semi-hostility while armies -were threatening the frontiers and propaganda was rife. He thus proposed a -struce on a "basis of de facto frontiers, -with the cessation of propaganda on part. Finally, he proposed that a sharp Note should be sent in re"ply*to Russia's Note, which needed an M. BartTrou (France) said that, actling on instructions from Paris, he was unable to discuss the reply to a document which they had not joined in spending. Speaking on Mr Lloyd proposals, he said, with regard to the suggested commissions, that the 'Conference had been discussing for five weeks the questions which these comTmissions were to investigate without -making progress. The Russian reply •disowned the Cannes conditions. The ri?x*ench. delegation had done what it «could to reach a decision, and he did not" think commissions could achieve smy result. It simply meant starting fche Genoa Conference over again in -•anoher form. He reserved the right to 'Consider whether the commission, if not -appointed by the conference, might not later be appointed by the Governments, always provided that the Russians were -not represented on these" commissions, which should be confined to the Allies ■and neutrals. Perhaps America and France could not accept Russian representation. He saw a grave menace in the proposed truce, inasmuch as propaganda would continue. *$&nor Schanzer (Italy) said he was not prepared to take the responsibility of saying the Powers should abandon their efforts at peace after only five •weeks' work. They should not refuse Mr Lloyd George's practical proposals. The danger of rupture Was very great, and the gravest of all was the parting on the Note by disunion on what was