ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18445, 5 January 1922, Page 4

ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS.

The .later discussions on the naval question at the Washington Conference must have served, had no other evidence been available, to indicate that all is not as 'it should be with the relations between Great Britain and France. .If the Entente rested' upon a basis of mutual understanding and confidence worthy of the name France would surely not have been found driving a destructive wedge into the whole naval limitation scheme, and asserting obdurately her right to construct a huge, fleet of submarines. Such an attitude on her part could not possibly be regarded as evidence of any particularly friendly disposition towards Great Britain. Mr Balfour spoke with restraint in that connection, but he spoke to the point. There was criticism enough of her policy from American sources, but France stuck to her guns—or, rather, to her submarines. That there is seeniingly a touch of the contumacious • and irascible in the French mood in these days, of which Great Britain receives most of the benefit, is only so much the worse for the usefulness of the Entente. The fact remains that the list of the cases of disagreement between France and Great Britain since the\ termination of the war has been a long one, and the cumulative effect has been unfortunate. Differences of national temperament and ideals must have some bearing on the explanation, but when 1 the toot causes of' misunderstanding are laid bare perhaps there will be a better prospect of their eradication. The Times speaks frankly on the subject in an article which seems to strike a very necessary note. "If there is a danger," it observes, "of the relations between Great Britain and France, through the carelessness, neglect, or obduracy of' the Anglo-French Governments, leading to conflict rather than-to a deepening of peace, if they become a check on progress rather than its best inspiration, then it is time that we had a new Kutentei" The very hypothesis which prefaces the conclusion quoted implies that there is ground for a sense of apprehension respecting the drift of affairs. It is the argument of The/Times that the agreement between the £wp countries which is so much to be desired can only be re-established if the points of difference and divergence are' frankly and openly discussed. Doubtless N there is a good deal to be said in support of this contention. The respective advantages of open and of secret diplomacy constitute a debatable question. But it is fairly apparent that for some time past the discussions in which France and Great Britain have been particularly interested have been largely productive of arrangements which have been merely palliatives, and have been lacking in the foundations of s>*ability. Compromises have tided over immediate difficulties, but the sores have not been properly healed, and ever and anon begin to rankle afresh. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that latterly, in spite of their unfailing arrival at frequent intervals at a "perfect understanding" on this pqjnt or that, France and Great Britain have been heading in more and more divergent directions. Whether France is deeply to blame, or whether what the Morning Post calls "Mr Lloyd George's indeterminate foreign policy" is largely at fault, he who runs may not read. The people of the Respective nations have had little opportunity of judging of causes leading to friction and recrimination. On the other hand, publicity such as has been provided for at Washington, affording opportunity for close observation and cpnlment upon what has been going on, does seem to have been conducive to international understanding and agreement. A few days ago M. Briand, replying to a question in the Chamber of Deputies, affirmed with emphnsis that the Franco-British Entente was complete and consolidated as far as possible. Such a declaration might mean a good deal, or it might mean very little. It would be a, thousand pities were two nations which were drawn so closely together during the war, which made common sacrifices and achieved a joint victory, to drift apart now, or to be in danger of drift-, ing apart, for want of mutual endeavour oil the part of their respective. Governments to arrive at a better general understanding. It is to be hoped that a manifestation of good sense on both sides will shortly lead to an improvement in the outlook.