THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1930. UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20668, 13 September 1930, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1930. UNITED STATES OF EUROPE.

Ol'Tsiiie the regular agenda of the League Assembly, hut introduced at the request of the Governments most concerned, is M. Briand's plan for " a regime of federal union in Europe." It has been wisely agreed that the Lca'guc offers a suitable forum for its discussion. Indeed, there is no better forum. The alternative of calling a special conference of Powers for its consideration is less reasonable than to use. the ordinary machinery at Geneva for such a purpose, for the plan explicitly provides for the proposed union being worked within the framework of the League, and a separate conferencee would therefore have to refer its findings to the Assembly in any case. 'Better to give the League an opportunity to discuss the proposal without the intervention of any other formal debate. The plan has been already well ventilated. A year ago it was laid before an informal gathering of the European Powers represented at the Assembly. At the request of that gathering, the French Embassy set out the plan in detail for consideration by all the European Powers in the League, and subsequently sent this statement to all the non-European members for their information, A few days ago a second informal gathering, composed and circumstanced similarly to the first, heard M. Briand again, and remitted the plan for formal examination by the League Assembly. This will include the opinions already declared provision illy by the leading European Powers. In this way there is assurance that no vital point will he overlooked, and that the plan will have thorough scrutiny in all its bearings by a body peculiarly fitted to examine it, under rules of procedure that allow the utmost liberty of candid comment. In view of the beginning of that discussion which M. Briand has now opened; it is well to note the replies sent to the French Embassy by the three leading Powers to whom the plan has been submitted in detail— Germany, Italy and Britain. Tlie German reply welcomes the French initiative, emphasises the importance of boldly reforming conditions that arc prejudicial to peace and prosperity, and promises co-opera-tion in endeavours to solve the problem. It agrees that the problem should be attacked first on the political side, arguing that equal status and security should be given to all. Russia and Turkey, although not in the League, should be included in the federal scheme, but Germany insists also that there must be no weakening of the League. In the economic application of the scheme, Germany urges that ways and means should be found to facilitate exchange of goods between areas differently productive, and that a review of tariffs should be included. In this reply is evident a wish to offset any advantage that France and Britain together might reap, and a reluctance to go all the way with France in making greater security a prc-requisite of economic co-operation. The reply sent bv Italy follows in its main points that of Germany, particularly as to the inclusion of Russia and Turkey. It lays stress, however, on the desirability of making disarmament, guarantees against, aggression, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes an essential basis of the plan. Again there can be seen the wish to provide against possible domination by France and Britain. In Germany's reply there is a significant phrase about " the peaceful adjustment of the natural, vital needs of the nations " —a phrase suggestive of revision of the peace treaty. On broader grounds, the Italian reply covers the present position of political restlessness. But the approach to the problem is from the same angle. For the Dominions, most interest centres in the reply sent by the British Government. At the informal meeting in Geneva last year tiie British Foreign Minister was studiedly non-committal, although not unsympathetic. He has gone cautiously forward in his opening speech in the Assembly. In the written reply there is expressed cordial agreement with the declared aim of the proposal to look away from old hostilities to new friendships in care for " common interests," and a welcome particularly for the idea of economic co-operation. But it is questioned whether the plan can be made to work within the framework of the League, and doubt is expressed whether any elaborate' machinery, such as a permanent committee and secretariat and a regular conference, is necessary or desirable. Insistence on the advisability of thorough discussion of the plan b.v the League is a vital point in the British reply, and it may be taken for granted that this insistence lias played the chief parti in the placing of the scheme on the agenda of the Assembly. There j can be no doubt, also, that the British reply has taken account of the unique position of Britain in j being concerned for the well-being! of a territory extending i'ar beyond Europe. The rest of the Empire, related only indirectly with the situation in Europe, cannot very well be forgotten. This complicates the position. On the one hand, Britain cannot be aloof from Europe; on the other, she has to consider the outer marches of the Empire. Their tendency is to avoid entanglements with Europe; yet they must have regard to the European responsibilities and duties of Britain. In the submission of the Locarno agreements for the endorsement of the Imperial Conference is a finger-post of policy. It is at this point that Britain's insistence on discussion by the League has particular importance. There the Dominions have direct voice and vote, and their participation in the crucial debate will lie invested with peculiar interest.