COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11411, 6 January 1923, Page 5

COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT

REPARATIONS CONFERENCE SEICHES CRISIS ANGLO-FRENCH RUPTURE THREATENED DRAMATIC FINAL SCENES CRAVE POSSIBILITIES A crisis described as disastrous in its consequences has been reached in connection with the reparations conference in Paris. After dramatic scenes the conference broke up, France positively declining to accept the British plan as a basis for discussion. It is -persistently stated that France will act independently in the occupation of German territory. The London Press, with the exception of the “Morning Post,” generally supports Britain’s attitude, while the , French Press is bitter in its condemnation of it.

DELECATES ASTONISHED AT COLLAPSE OF CONFERENCE. FRANCE’S LONE HAND. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Australian and N.2. Cahle Association LONDON, January 4. The United Press Association’s correspondent at Paris states that the Premiers’ Conference has ended in complete disagreement. (Received January 5, 7.20 p.m.) PARIS, January 5. Mr Martin Donoghue, writing in the “Daily Chronicle,’’ says: “Now that France has recovered her liberty of action a Note will .be sent to Germany requesting the acceptance of the French, plan. If Germany refuses the sanctions will immediately be applied, including the occupation of Essen, Bochum, and the Ruhr, andi the establishment of a Customs barrier. It i 6 understood that Mr Bonax Law will cancel Britain’s participation in the Reparations Commission, giving a year’s notice to that effect. Meanwhile the British delegatee will abstain from attending." According to a message received from Lausanne the delegates were astonished at the collapse of the Conference. The Turks are openly rejoicing at the news. M. Tdhitcherin. interviewed Ismet Pasha, the conference lasting for two hours. WHEN THEJEND GAME DELEGATES DEEPLY MOVED, k DRAMATIC SCENE. (Received January 5, 11.20 p.m.) LONDON, January 5. The “Daily Express” Paris correspondent says that the Conference met at 3 o’clock for an hour, then adjourned for an hour and a half, and finally broke up -at 6.30. It was obvious from the delegates’ faces at the adjournment that the end' was near. ’the Conference broke over the guarantees. Mr Bonar Law’s scheme offered a moratorium without immediate guarantees. M. Poincare would not agree to any moratorium without guarantees. The delegation sat face to face with a hopeless situation. There was a fear minutes’ 'silence, everyone recognising that a great crisis in the world’s history had been reached, each delegate fearing to speak the fatal word marking the termination of long years of alliance, common suffering, effort and trial. M. Poincare fidgeted, and obviously was intensely moved. Mr Bonar Law, with his eyes on the table, sat motionless. M. Poincare broke the silenoe by proposing an adjournemnt for an hour ana a half. Mr Bonar Law quickly sought M. Poincare’s hand. All rose and left. FRIENDSHIP UNCHANGED. Mr Bonar Law, in a statement after the breakdown of the Conference, said there were irreconcilable differences between France and Britain, but the friendship between the two countries and their peoples would remain unchanged. The British Government would not take part in or accept any responsibility for France’s actions. GENEROUS BRITISH OFFER. The Foreign Office has issued the full text of a long, closely-argued British reply to the French criticisms at ths second sittings of the Conference, but it throws no light upon the causes of the final disagreement, which was due to the fundamental considerations outlined in Mr Bonar Law’s first speech. The reply emphasises that, despite her own liability to America, Britain will offer to cancel her Allied debts totalling £1,100,000,000, the burden of which the British taxpayer must bear for at least a generation. RUPTURE NOT GENERAL STATEMENT BY M. POINCARE. RELATIONS STILL CORDIAL. (Received January 5, 11.20 p.m.) PARIS, January 5. President Poincare, in a statement after the Conference, said that, despite differences of opinion, the sentiment of the French Government and nation towards England would remain unchangedly cordial. President Poincare added that it was desirable to make clear that if differences between Britain and France on the reparations were complete and irremediable, the agreement continues upon all other clauses of the Versailles Treaty. The rupture was not genera], and instructions had been sent the French delegates at Lausanne to continue negotiations in full accord with England. “Now the Conference has broken down we are going to convene a meeting of the Reparatione Commission and ask them to take action regarding the nondelivery of coal/’ Sir John Bradbury officially informed M. Barthou that he will refuse to take part in the discussion. FRENCH CRITICISM BONAR LAW! ASSAILED. A BITTER PRESS. PARIS, January 4. "Sauerwein,” writing in the “Matin,” says Mr Bonar Law seems to regard the rupture between England and France unmoved. Hitherto he has made no effort to dissipate the legitimate French apprehensions on essential

points. Mr Bonar Law has privately expressed) the opinion that a rupture is inevitable. He knows that France will be morally foroed, under penalty of losing forever all hope of repairing her ruined lands, to enforce productive guarantees from German territory. Mr Bonar Law, while protesting against the oooupation of the Ruhr in order to conciliate the Labour Party, wishes to maintain the Entente. On ihe question of the Near East “Sauerwein” protests against the inconsistency of the loyal assistance being given by M. Barrere to Lord Curzon on Turkish matters and the devoted .support being accorded to Heir Ouno by Lord D’Abernon (British Ambassador in Berlin). The “Matin” says that Mr Bonar Law’s declaration 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 he regarded as a pledge or security. The “Petit Journal” states that yesterday’s explanation resulted in the beginnings of a rapprochement. A change in the atmosphere is noticeable. M. Millet, writing in the “Petit Parisien,” considens that it is still possible that Mr Bonar Law's detailed reply will put a fresh aspect on the debate. 'Nevertheless no agreement can he oonoluded, and the result will be that France arid Belgium will be unable to avoid joint military occupation of Germany’s territory. The “Eclair” strongly criticises 'England’s narrow egotism, and adds:— “There is a ditch between England and France. It is not France who will cross it.” “ ENTENTMS DOOMED ” GLOOMY FRENCH VIEWS. FRANCE’S ONE DUTY. (Received January S, 9.25 p.m.) LONDON, January 5. The French press is generally of the opinion that the Entente is doomed. Herve writes in the “Victoire” as follows: —“If this is Mr Bonar Law’s last word, it ends the alliance.’ ’ M. Tardieu, in the “Echo National,” says: “France’s one duty is to seek with nations who wish to see international law respected a means of ©merging from the present crisis without Anglo-Saxon help. „ The “Echo de Paris” says: “Mr Bonar Law set himself before all things to come to an understanding with America.” It hopes Mr Bonar Law will observe a benevolent attitude to France while the latfer collects the German debts. The “Liberte” remarks: “To-morrow the Entente will end, also two peoples will then be free to pursue mnfettered their ways.” The paper accuses Mr Bonar Law of resorting to fhe favourite British trick of isolating France. “ENTENTE EXISTS” “BUT ENTENTE CORHIALE IB BEAD.” (Received January 5, 7.20 p.m.) PARIS, January 5. “The Entente exists but the Entente Cordiale is dead.” This is the keynote of the oomments in the cafes and on the boulevards to-night. FRIENDSHIP UNCHANGED. HARIS, January 4. After the Conference had terminated and it was announced that the AngloFrench viewpoints were irreconcilable, Mr Bonar Law, in leaving the room, declared that Britain’s friendship for the French people had not abated. M. Poincare reciprocated. BRITISH PRESS VIEWS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR PREMIER. “MORNING POST” DISAPPOINTED. (Received January 5, 8.40 p.m.) LONDON, January 6. The “Daily Chronicle” says that the British proposals are regarded as a question economically of how to avoid killing the goose which layß the golden egg. The French scheme insists on guarantees which would frustrate the German recovery, and therefore cannot prodrice reparations. It would reduce Germany to economic and political impotence, with the inevitable result that the sources of the reparations would run dry. A break-up of the Conference, therefore, is inevitable. Tlie “Daily Telegraph” emphasises the fact that Britain regard's the reparations solely as a means of obtaining from Germany the maximum pecuniary compensation for war injuries France desires also to make reparations mean punishment. Neutrals recognise that Mr Bonar Law has been fighting the battle of every people to whom a general participation in settled international conditions is the object of rupreme importance. The paper pays a tribute tq Mr Bonair Law’s frankness and honesty. The “Morning Post”- is disappointed that the British Premier offered France terms she could not accept. In trenchantly attacking Mr Lloyd George the paper siays that Mr Bonar Law ib the victim of his follies. The paper regrets that Mr Bonar Law parted with France for what appears to be an entirely unnecessary solicitude for Germany. Germany is to obtain a moratorium without adequate pledges, and Germany is to enjoy probation which ought to be accorded only to .a first of-

fender and not a hardened criminal, whose creed is still the iron law of necessity. The only way to obtain ■ (security from Germany is a pledge so severe that it will not pay her to break it. That. is the system favoured by M. Poincare, who sees the Treaty of Versailles scrapped and the existence of France threatened by the Power which launched the thunderbolt in 1914. The “Westminster Gazette” supports the British proposals, but regards rupture as a disaster. The ‘‘Daily Express” is against the French policy, and says that in order that Britain may not be involved in any backwash from the French receivership in regard to the K-uhr Valley, we must remove our army from Cologne. This is a step of vital urgency. NO ILLUSION HOW BRITISH MINISTERS VIEW' MATTERS. MUST MINIMISE THE BREACH. LONDON, January 4. The “Daily Mail’s” Paris correspondent states that there is no illusion in the minds of the British Ministers regarding the speedy breaking up of the Conference. One of the British delegates stated that the main object now must he to minimise, as far as can be done, the breach in the Entente. “Our friendship,” he said, “is no less sincere though we are convinced the French plan will he disastrous. It no doubt remains for France to proceed with her independent action. We must formally protest, as we are firmly convinced that destroying German credit will have a very serious consequence to Britain.” OCCUPATION OF RUHR WHAT FRANCE PROPOSES. WITHDRAWAL OF THE BRITISH TROOPS SUGGESTED. (Received January 6, 7.30 p.m.) PARIS, January 5. The “Daily Express’s” Paris correspondent says that the operations connected with the occupation of the Ruhr are expected to be completed in one day. The I 'farthest point of the section to be occupied is only ten miles distant from the present French occupied area. Four to five thousand troops will be used to deal with expected incidents. (Received January 5, 7.20 p.m.) PARIS, January 5. It is learned that Mr Bonar Law unofficially suggested to M. Poincare the withdrawal of the British from the Rhine, as French action would remove the possibility of German payments of the cost of the armies of occupation. PARIS, January 4. A member of the British delegation expressed the opinion that if France decides to take isolated action Britain will he hound to make a formal protest, at the same time making it clear that she will not participate in any reparations France may secure by her action. The feeling in British circles is that the Conference will break up to-night. COM PROM ISEJSUGGESTED ITALIANS AS CONCILIATORS. PARIS, January 4. The Italian delegation assumed the role of conciliators, and drafted a:plan endeavouring to combine the important points of the French and British schemes. When the Conference resumed Signor Torreta submitted a compromise. It is believed that the French are unlikely to accept. Diplomatic circles express the opinion that Britain will withdraw from the Reparations Commission if a rupture of the Entente results from the Conference. A special courier left Paris by aeroplane at 2 o’clock hearing an important dispatch from Mr Bonar Law to the British Cabinet. GERMAN PROPOSAL NON-AGGRESSION AGAINST FRANCE. POINCARE SEES A FLAW. PARIS, January 4. M. Poincare ha 6 requested the French Ambassador at Washington to inform Mr C. E. Hughes, American Secretary for State, that the German proposal for non-aggression against France was clearly undertaken with a view to securing the evacuation of the Rhineland before fulfilling the Treaty of Versailles. Germany’s present proposal of non-aggression against France, Italy, and Britain would leave her free to attack Poland, Ozecho-Slovakia, and even Denmark to regain her lost territories, and the Allies would be forbidden to come to their aid. In the course of a recent speech, the German, Chancellor stated that, as a proof of Germany’s desire for peace, Germany, through a third Power, had proposed to make a pledge with France and the other Powers interested in the Rhine not to declare war for a generation without first taking a plebiscite. ITALIAN INTERESTS BRITISH PLAN DETRIMENTAL. EFFECT OF MORATORIUM. (Received January 5, 8.5 p.m.) ROME, January 4. Signor Mussolini reported to Cabinet that the English plan of dealing with the reparations was detrimental to Italian interests. A four-years’ moratorium would deprive Italy of her supply of coal, and compel Italy to purchase coal from England at prices which would further depreciate the lira. Under the English plan Italy would be unable to enforce her claims against other ex-enemy States. Furthermore, Italy would he compelled to allot' England 600,000,000 lire in gold; and renounce her credits from, her minor Allies, while Italy would have no guarantee that her debt to America would be cancelled. Cabinet approved the attitude of the Italian delegation in Paris. (Received January 6, 8.5 p.m.) PARIS, January 4. Italy’s proposal is to raise 10,000,000,000 gold marks by an international loan to be used to stabilise the mark and pay reparations. “ FRENCH COLD BRITAIN’S OBLIGATION TO RETURN IT. PARIS, January 4. When the Conference reopened, an official French Note was issued declaring that under the contract signed at Calais on June 25th, 1916, France received from Britain credits to the ex-

tent of £150,000,000 as security for which Franco sent £50,000,000 worth of gold to London, on the understanding that the gold would he returned to France three years after the conclusion of the war upon French repayments. England in 1917 and again iD 1919 sought release from her obligation to return the gold, but France refused. Consequently England is still under an obligation to return the gold. AMERICA’S POSITION REPRESENTATION ON COMMISSION. PRESIDENT WATCHES NEW SITUATION. Washington, January 4. ■Senator Johnson, attacking Senator Robinson’s Bill, providing for American representation on the Reparations Commission, declared that there was too much loose talk in the country about America’s duty. “In England the feeling is that all the United States can do to stabilise Europe is to cancel Europe’s debt. There’s the thing we can do. Do we want to do it? We can play our part by forgiving our debt if you’re ready to do it. lam not ready. There is the road. Will you take it? Dare you take it? Or will you continue to engage in the same empty talk and nebulous expressions w© have been hearing?” Senator Robinson said that both hesitation, and secrecy should be abandoned. “Let the Senate and the public he informed of what hag been done and what the Government proposes to do to save us from the harm which is inevitable if tho present political and economic disturbances in Europe continue.” Senator Robinson suggested that Colonel Harvey, American Ambassador in London, should be called _ before the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Lodge assured him that all information assisting in dealing with this question would be obtained by the Committee. , Immediately following tho receipt of the cablegram advising that the Paris Conference had broken up in disagreement, Ambassador Harvey conferred with Mr Hughes and President Harding, the President cancelling all his engagements so as to devote consideration to the new situation. The United Press Association understands that America is unlikely to move immediately. FRANCE BLAMED WILL AMERICA STEP IN? MR HUGHES’S PROMISE. (Received January 5, 10.5 p.m.) NEW YORK, January 5. The Press, though unanimous concerning the gravity of the situation, arising out of the rupture at the Premiers’ Conference, shows differing attitudes in considering the result. The “World” blames France, and says a terrible responsibility rests upon her. She has committed herself to measures which in the opinion of practically the whole world are dangerous, provocative and self-defeating. The “Times” points out that Mr Hughes knew the Premiers’ Conference would fail, and asks: “Will America step in and fulfil the promise contained in his reoent speech?” Kefermg recently to attempts to link debts to America with the reparations, Mr O. E. Hughes (Secretary for State) said: “The matter is plain enough from our standpoint. Germany’s capacity to pay is not affected by any indebtedness of our allies to us. That indebtedness does not diminish Germany’s capacity and its removal would not increase her capacity. Moreover, the Allies’ condition and capacity to pay cannot properly be determined until the amounts realisable, on these credits, for reparations have been determined. We have no desire to see Germany relieved of her responsibility for war or her just obligations to make reparation ,for injuries due to her aggression, '('here is not the slightest desire that France shall lose any part of her just claims. On the other hand, we do not wish to see a prostrate Germany. There can be no economic recuperation of Europe unless Germany recuperates. Vfe should view with disfavour any measures which, instead of producing reparations, would threaten disaster.” FEELING IN_WASHINGTON STATESMEN BUSY CONFERRING. ARMY OF OCCUPATION. ' (Received January 5, 9.25 p.m.) NEW YORK, January 5. The “New York World’s” Washington correspondent telegraphs that the capital, upon the news of tie break-up of the Premiers’ Conference, became a city of conferences. Colonel' Harvey confers with Senator Lodge, and in turn they confer with President Harding, then with Mr Hughes. Senator Robinson visits President Harding in order to explain his bill, which will be taken under the consideration of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee immediately. Mr J. W. Weeks (Secretary for War) confers with his undersecretaries, ostensibly on the question of American troops in Germany. A suggestion that those troops will he withdrawn is in the air. It is felt that the United States could not well allow France to occupy the Ruhr and allow troops to remain, but on the other hand, the presence of American troops might be best. It is difficult to say exactly what decisions have been reached among the Powers that be in Washington. There is much discussion, but the understanding is that the United States at present will make no move, but will occupy itself with observing the situation for the time being. MR HUGHES’S SCHEME SUPPORTED BY MR LLOYD GEORGE. (Received January 5, 8.5 p.m.) LONDON, January 4. Mr Lloyd George telegraphed to the “Daily Chronicle” as follows: “I read with gladness Secretary Hughes’s important speech suggesting the appointment of a commission of financial experts on reparations. As far as I can judge from the oompressed report, Mr Hughes’s remarks and my suggestions travel in the same direction. All other experiments will merely postpone the mischief, which in the long run will have to be redeemed with usurious compound interest by embarrassed Europe.” DEBT TO_AMERICA BRITISH FINANCIAL MISSION. QUICK DECISION EXPECTED. NEW YORK, January 4. The British Debt Commission arrived by the Majestic and was welcomed by. the British Consul-General and the

Assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury. Mr Stanley Baldwin, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared: “If we can come to an agreement it will be a quick one.” The return passage has been booked for January 20th. The party left immediately for Washington. The British Financial Mission to the United States includes Mr Stanley Baldwin, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, and Mr Rowe Button, Treasury Adviser. When the much-discussed Balfour Note was issued in August it was stated that Britain owed the United States about 860 millions, at par exchange, together with interest since 3910. War debts, excluding interest, due to Britain at that time amounted to 3400 millions, of which Germany owed 1450 millions, Russia 610 millions, and the Allies 1300 millions. Britain was prepared, if such a policy formed part of a satisfactory international settlement, to remit all. the debts duo to Britain from the Allies, in respect of loans, and from Germany, in respect of reparations. But with America asking for pavment of the amount due to her Britain, with regret, felt constrained to request the respective Governments to arrange far deeding to the best of their ability with debts to Britain. Any relief Britain secured from America would be reflected in the demands made on the Allies for the repayment of loans granted to them. GERMANY’S REPARATION PAYMENTS MADE TO DATE. A statement of what Germany has paid to date in ieparations and* the medium in which the payments have been made is of peculiar interest just now in view of reparation situation. The “London Stock Exchange Gazette,” using official figures, estimates that Germany had paid up to the end of March, 9,511,943,119 gold marks in reparations amd restitutions in kind, a sum equivalent to about 2,800,000,000 dollars, at the pre-war rate of exchange. The London authority adds: At first sight this sum seems large indeed. However, about three-fourths of the amount mentioned consists of objects of value taken from Franco and Belgium by the German invaders and returned as restitution to the legitimate owners. The reparation payments proper come to 1,321,641,102 gold marks, or £66,000,000, according to the following statement:

It should be added that the 5000 locomotives and the 150,000 railway waggons delivered under the armistice represent 1,100,000,000 gold marks.

■Goal Marks. 987,619,017 Cattle 171,816,756 'Dyestuffs 49,353,864 Coal by-products 21,552,479 Pictures for Belgium 12,000,000 Drugs 11,558,641 Louvain Library 1,052,200 ■Various 66,688,145 Total 1,321,641,102