The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1923. TO SAVE EUROPE

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11662, 29 October 1923, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1923. TO SAVE EUROPE

A profound sensation, especially in diplomatic circles, was caused last week by the outspoken utterances, delivered the same day in London by General Smuts (Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa) and Colonel Harvey (the American Ambassador), on the urgent need of an International Conference for the purpose of arriving at a -solution of the reparations problem. The significance of the two speeches is undoubtedly greatly heightened if, as is suggested by the London “Daily Telegraph’s’’ diplomatic correspondent, their simultaneous delivery was not a mere coincidence, but “the outcome of joint and careful consideration, which explains the prominence given to General Smuts’s declarations by the American Press.” It is noteworthy, too, that President Coolidge has intimated that Colonel Harvey's speech reflected the Washington Administration’s attitude completely,, while the President’s friends state that Colonel Hiarvey might -have used even stronger language to express his views. This, no doubt, refers more particularly to the passage in which Colonel Harvey emphasised solemnly and emphatically the implication contained in the enun ciation of the Monroe Doctrine: “No participation by the United States in the political ibroils of Europe.” “This is (he declared) a living part of the Monroe Doctrine confronting us today. The Monroe Doctrine is still the corner-stone of United States policy, unchanged and unchangeable by any President and any Congress. It is implanted in the will of the American people. Eleven months ago the Secretary of State (Mr Hughes) oftered to provide American adjudication on reparations. America came to the door of Europe, but the door was. closed. We were willing to ‘come in,’ but, surely, we were not expected to 6mnsh the door in. The Monroe Doctrine forbids that.”

It is good, indeed, to know that the Monroe Doctrine, while it very wisely forbids America breaking down the door of Europe, permits the United States to knock at the door with an offer of adjudication. It is good, also, to know that America, if invited, in response to that knock, is willing to come in. President Coolidge, in fact, has expressly reiterated that the United States desires to be helpful in Europe, but the way lias not yet appeared. Possibly, as a result of the very vigorous stirring of the still, but deop-running, waters, or diplomacy by General Smuts, the way may before long -be found. That General Smuts himself is inclined to believe that this is not only possible but probable, and has succeeded in persuading the Empire Premiers that it is so, appears to bo indicated by the fact that, on his proposal, it has been decided to prolong the Imperial Conference until the third week in November. It seems very probable, indeed, that the influence of the Dominion Premiers has largely contributed to the initiation of those negotiations to which General Smuts referred as being on foot. As a matter of fact, reading the report of General Smutg’s speech along with the cabled summary of Lord Curzon’s telegram to the United States Suggesting the holding of the Conference, it almost appears, from the similarity of ideas, and even of language, that General Smuts must have seen the Foreign Secretary’s dispatch before making -his speech. On the other hand, it may well be that the dispatoh was suggested by what General Smuts had already said on the matter at the Imperial Conference, and that his language was largely followed in drafting the telegram:

Drift will be fatal, declared General Smuts. Half-measures, palliatives, and the expedients to which ■politicians resort when hard pressed will no longer avail. Either a comprehensive settlement must now be effected, or the settlement will develop until it brings its own horrible Nemesis, and shook-s and shames the conscience of the whole world into action. I rote for a gallant attempt now to save Eu-ropo. Faith, courage, and statesmanship are wanted. The time has come for the convocation of a great conference of the Powers. Decisions of far-reaohing importance must be taken, .... I know that ne-

gotiations -are on foot to bring about such a conference. I shall therefore abstain from saying more, except that in my judgment it is vitally important that the United States shall be represented os an active member, bearing its full weight, which in the circumstances may -be more decisive than that of any other Power. I have complete confidence in America's readiness to act at the Tight time

Lord Curzon, in his -dispatch, expressed the belief that if no common action is taken, not merely Germany, but Europe, appears to bo drifting tp economic disaster. He, then-lore, rfppeals for the co-operation of the United States Government, which Britain believes to be an essential condition of any real advance towards a settlement;

and he points out that America’s disinterest is greater than that c-f tho European Powers. Britain, he states, has always heartily approved of Mr Hughes’s declaration of December last, when it was suggested that an Inter- j national Conference should be held to assess Germany’s capacity to pay, and to consider an appropriate financial plan to ensure such payments. But France disapproved of it. He asks, therefore, whether Britain and the majority of the Allies could still hope for American co-operation at the Conference, even though complete unanimity was not achieved in Europe, or, alternatively, whether America would cooperate if the inquiry was entrusted to the ' Reparations Commission. It is worthy of note, too, that he concludes by saying that the British Government is speaking in the name of the whole of the British Empire, as represented at the Imperial Conference. The most satisfactory feature of Mr Hughes’s reply is fils insistence on the point that there should be no grounds for the impression that if a London Conference is called it will aim at relieving Germany of . her obligations, or that resistance to the fulfilment of her obligations will he in any way supported. For the rest, he says that the United States cannot appoint a member of the Reparations Commission without tire consent of Congress, hut no doubt a competent American would be willing to participate in the economic inquiry; he reiterates the desire of tho United State* to lend assistance towards the re-establishing of peace and economic restoration; but with regard to the suggestion as to holding a reparations inquiry, even in the absence of complete unanimity in Europe, he replies that in that case t-he United States must reserve its deoision regarding its course of action, in order that a course may he taken which will give t-he best -promise of ultimate success and securing the desired end of the re-establishment of essential conditions for European peace and economio restoration.

This has, at all events, the merit of leaving tho door still open; and it seems quite possible that the reply is thus phrased with the hope of keying up France to the point of agreeing to take part in the Conference. The “Now York World” sees a promise in Mr Hughes’s words that the United States may join a European Conference, even if France does not aeoept it; and is, furthermore, inclined to think that France will yield. Franco and Belgium have, at any rate, already accepted in principle the suggestion for a new Reparations Conference, but with the limitation that it must 'be convened as a. committee under the Separations Commission whose authority, created by the Versailles Treaty, must remain complete and unchallenged. We hope and trust that the present week will see an even greater measure of agreement arrived at.