DISAPPOINTMENT OF BRITAIN.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 13 August 1923, Page 5

DISAPPOINTMENT OF BRITAIN.

OBSTACLES TO SETTLEMENT.

BY CABLE—PBESS ASSOCIATION—COPYEIGgT

Received August 13, 9.5 a.m.

LONDON, Aug. 12

The British reply commences by expressing the disappointment caused to the* Government by the replies received from the French and Belgian Governments. With those Notes was submitted the draft joint Allied answer, which the Government proposed should be sent to the German memorandum of June 7. Th© proposal represented an earnest effort to indicate the practical way of assuring, as promptly as possible, a final settlement of the question of German reparations. The Government understood that in the opinion of the French and Belgian Governments, the two main obstacles in the way of any fresh move in seeking a settlement were: (1) The - necessity for scrupulously respecting the rights of the Reparations Commission; (2) the attitude of the German Government in encouraging passive resistance in the Ruhr. With both these questions therefore the Government proposed, in its suggested reply, to deal in a manner which they' confidently expected would commend itself to their Allies. How completely they had been disappointed in their expectations was made manifest by the. content^ ofth© Notes; in which the French and Belgian Gov-' ernments replied. Reply seems all the more necessary, since in its desire to avoid controversy at a critical phase the Government has Tefrained from sending any rejoinder to the observations which the French and Belgian Governments communicated over a month ago in reply to the questionaire. Sooner than embark on a controversy the Gov- ! ernment preferred to submit a definite I plan of action under which the proposed suggested enquiry into Germany's capacity to pay should be conducted within the framework of the Treaty and tn<* German Government be called to withdraw its. orders and measures enjoining passive resistance. Furthermore, in ordfr to comply with the declared objections of the French and Belgian allies to nnv snecific bargain on this point, the British proposals were restricted to intimations that if the German Government abandoned passive resistance without delay, not only would this be regarded as evidence of good faith, but would involve a re>consideration by the occupying Powers of the conditions of their occupation and the gradual return to normal features in the industrial life in the Ruhr. It was difficult to think in what way greater consideration could be shown to the French and Belgian viewpoint. The reception, however, which had been accorded to thqse proposals by the French and Belgian Governments in their replies leads His Majesty's Government, notwithstanding terms of courtesy employed, to believe that neither are their suggestions welcomed by the Allies nor is there offered cooperation to melit consideration except on condition, that no departure is to be made from any one particular form, whatever France and Belgium declare to be their over-riding views and decisions. It is true that Belgium's re-' ply appears at first sight to be less uncompromising than the French Note, but closer examination had shown that th© attitude of the two Governments in all practical purposes was identical, and though the Belgian Government appears to be specially anxious for the continuance of friendly conversation, it is only on condition that the substance of the Belgian claims be conceded in advance. Accordingly the Government asks leave to deal with the two replies in a single answer. The first point that struck the Government was that in neither was there any allusion to tha terms of the British draft reply to the German memorandum. The Belgian Government indeed is still in favour of the principle of a joint reply, but the French pass the proposal over m complete silence. Yet this was the main object to which in its desire for the continued . maintenance of Allied unity the British Government devoted its efforts.-—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn