AFFAIRS OF EMPIRE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18987, 8 October 1923, Page 7

AFFAIRS OF EMPIRE

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE. FOREIGN POLICY DISCUSSED. LORD QUEZON’S ANALYSIS. MESSAGE FROM THE KING. Ppw« Aisocifttion —By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, October 5. Lord Curzon occupied three hours of the sitting of the Imperial Conference this morning reviewing the foreign situation all over the world. A great part was necessarily confidential, as it was supplemented by written communications of the past two years, and by giving the delegates orally the inner history of that period, explaining the springs of British policy since 1921. It was decided that certain parts of the speech relating to matters of urgent importance should be published verbatim later in the day. It was pointed out that this would be a departure from the procedure of all previous conferences. It is understood that the portions of the statement to be published particularly refer to the German situation and the British attitude in regard to the Hu hr. It is believed that the question of territorial waters limit, which has been discussed between Britain and the United States, will also be submitted to the conference, in order to enable the dominion Prime Ministers to express their views before a definite decision is reached. Wellinformed circles do not entirely rule out the possibility of the British Government agreeing to Mr Hughes s proposal of a 12-miles limit. Mr Baldwin communicated a message from his Majesty thanking the Empire Prime Ministers in generous terms for their address on the occasion of the opening of the conference, and trusting that their deliberations would lead to a solution of many grave problems, the settlement of which was so necessary to the commonwealth of British nations. The conference in the afternoon continued the discussion on matters for facilitating Empire trade. —Reuter. LORD QUEZON’S SPEECH. BRITAIN’S REPARATIONS POLICY. PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT DESIRED. LONDON, October 6. (Received Oct. 7, at 5.5 p.m.) Lord Curzon, in his speech at the Imperial Conference, said: “We would welcome the victory of our Allies in the Ruhr if victory it was,” but he pointed out that, as the British Government had anticipated, this had produced the beginning ot internal disruption in Germany. This disruption, he said, was not merely an ominous symptom, but it had a portentous economic significance, as it meant the ultimate disappearance of the debtor himself. Lord Curzon added that Britain was awaiting the next proposals from France. Britain was quite ready to receive and discuss in a friendly spirit the measures which France now proposed to take. He stressed the British right to be consulted, and expressed the opinion that the Gorman surrender should have Deen made three months ago; but lie suspected that no German Government at that time could have survived the surrender. It was at present uncertain whether Dr btrescmann, who had had the courage and wisdom to take tins step, would survive. Were we, however, any nearer a settlement and would reparations begin to flow in? .Lord Curzon intimated that the Government thought that the time for discussion between the Allies had come. He said he had not concealed the British view in conversations -with the trench Ambassador, and it had the approval of Mr Baldwin who recently did so much by his visit to Paris to rc-creato a friendly atmosphere after a rather heated discharge of rival guns. The Herman Government, so far as he could gather, was sincere in its intentions, and it had taken the steps required, though it might he too much to expect that the abandonment of resistance would bo followed instantly by enthusiastic co-operation. Uur position at Cologne gave us the right to be consulted in any local arrangement that might be proposed, and that position—we had no intention of abandoning our reparations claim, willing as we had been to pare it down in the interests of a settlements—rendered it impossible that any such settlement could be reached without our co-operation, uur stake in the economic recovery of Europe, which in some respects affected us more than Germany's immediate neighbours, made us long for a peaceful issue, and we had already shown our willingness to contribute to'that issue by our unexampled concessions.—Reuter. NEW EASTERN POLICY. A VIGOROUS VINDICATION. LONDON, October 6. (Received Oct. 7, at 11.5 p.m.) Lord Curzon earlier in his speech said that no sane person had ever expected that Germany would be able fully to pay the £6,600,000,000 fixed by the Reparations Commission. It could not be denied that the sanguine expectations with which the Ruhr occupation was begun had been largely falsified by the results. The Government more than once had indicated its willingness to discuss security with the French Government if security was in the minds of French statesmen. He declared that after the last FrancoBclgian replies our capacity of useful intervention was manifestly exhausted. In the only other part of the speech which was published Lord Curzon vigorously defended the British policy in the Near East. Tic said the Lausanne Treaty was not such as it might have been had the Bowers maintained a united front on all the points, but the best obtainable had been obtained under the circumstances. He sketched his efforts to end the ill-judged and ill-fated TurcoGreek hostilities and said that the task had not been rendered easier by M. Franklin Bonilkm'U agreement., which had encouraged the Turkish pretensions. Britain alone had saved the situation in the crisis after the Turkish victory over Greece, and had prevented the invasion of Europe, lie claimed that the solution regarding the Straits was eminently favourable to British Imperial interests, and he thought that the final restoration of peace in the Near East, the freedom of the Straits, and the liberation of the entire block of Arab countries had enhanced the prestige of Britain in Turkey. Altogether the appeasement in all Moslem countries had sufficiently justified the British labours at Lausanne. A very heavy task awaited Turkey. He was of opinion that she would experience great disillusionments and many disappointments, and some of the frutis which she claimed to have garnered would turn out dead sea apples in her mouth. But in making her great experiment she had started with a complete absence of resentment on our part ami a sincere expression of our goodwill. He remarked that when the Turks realised that he would break up the conference sooner than cede the point relative to the transfer and safeguard of the sacred soil of Gallipoli which was stained with the blood of his fellow-subjects they gave way.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

NO NEW FEATURES. BRITAIN’S LACK OF POLICY. LONDON, October 5. (Received. Oct. /, at 6.5 p.m.) The Daily Express, in an editorial comment, says: “Lord Curzon’s reference to the Ruhr is only a re-statement of the British position made on August 11. The result is merelv to publish to the world the fact that (treat Britain has no settled policy, and that her Ministers speak with different voices as occasions demand. First, we have the British Note of August 11, then the Baldwin communique alter the Paris interview with M. Poincare, and then Lord Curzon’s re-assert ion of the August Note. We have little sympathy with the French viewpoint and none with the German. Lord Curzon leaves us exactly where we were—in a ‘Dickens of a mess.’ There is Only one way out — namely, to draw clear of Europe and turn our energies to the dominions, the colonies, India, and Egypt. Thus we should find work for our workless, and safety for the State.”-—A. and N.Z. Cable. EMPIRE SETTLEMENT ACT. THE RESULTS DISAPPOINTING. SUGGESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND REPRESENTATIVES. LONDON, October 6. (Received Oct. 7, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr A. Buckley (Parliamentary secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade), in a speech, said ho regretted the results of the working of the Empire Settlement Act. There had been a disappointing number of assisted emigrants to September 30—an infinitesimal number compared with the needs of the movement ; 23,479 persons had gone to Australia, 4502 to New Zealand, and 3851 to Canada. Their actual cash commitments under the Act were £305,000 for Australia, £32,000 for Canada, and £45,000 for New Zealand, a total of £382,000, compared with an authorisation of £1,500,000 to March 31 last. It was impossible to rely on an improvement in 1024. The conference must consider whether the causes of the meagre results were economic, political, or psychological. The fault was not with the various Governments concerned, who paid close attention to the problem. He mentioned Sir William Windham’s last letter, and said lie doubted whether migration to Australia in 1924 would exceed 50,000 persons. Mr Buckley said he understood that New Zealand was unlikely conspicuously to increase her absorption of migrants in 1924. The same appeared to apply to Canada. In the course of the discussion '"the Canadian Minister of Defence, Mr G. P. Graham, said that the results of the Act in Canada were satisfactory. The number of British immigrants had increased 100 per cent, during the first four mopths of 1924 as compared with 1922. Mr Massey and Sir James Allen drew attention to the comparative lack of land for settlement in New Zealand. They hoped that the full quota would be reached under the nominated scheme; which was a sound movement and must be quickened without forcing the pace beyond the limits of its economic possibilities. Perhaps the primary obstacle to a rapid expansion was the economic conditions. Bad trade at Home and overseas adversely affected migration. Furthermore, political extremists exploited the cases of failure, while from a psychological viewpoint many feared to leave their homes. They suggested to their confreres vigorously to scrutinise and improve the selection and recruitment of migrants. In respect to their reception and training overseas, they suggested an extension of group settlement. They emphasised that the time was peculiarly apt for encouraging the migration of juveniles and women, and. for giving opportunities to the products of public schools. EMPIRE CONSTITUTION. CLOSER CO-ORDINATION WITH LONDON. . LONDON, October 0. The Nation, in a leading article, says: “Internationally the dominions have won for themselves a position within the community of nations -and within the Empire. The dominions recently reviewed the repeated acknowledgment of their entirely new status, their right to more frequent and more intimate consultation upon matters of vital Imperial interest, and the need for revision of the unwritten partnership agreement which holds the Empire together Clearly the imperial Conference cannot separate without pronouncing upon some of these constitutional issues. The main effect of the preset working arrangement is the lack of adequate machinery tor effective consultation between the London Cabinet and the 'fethqr Cabinets of the Empire. The world is rocking, qnd the British Commonwealth, if it acts together, can do much to stabilise it. If the hysterical cry to the dominions on the Turkish issue, emitted by Mr Lloyd George's Cabinet (or a fragment of it) last year is a fair product of the present machinery, then reform is badly needed, for the British Commonwealtii will not be held together or brought to act together* by exploiting the Gallipoli graves. While the main responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of international affairs must continue for some time yet to rest with the London Cabinet, the dominions are entitled to claim the observance of two conditions — namely, that they should have given previous assent to the general principles being followed in negotiations and that they should be kept sufficiently in touch with \the progress of events to enable them at the moment of crisis to determine their course of action upon reasoned judgment, instead of being stampeded by that-senti-ment of loyalty which is so easy to evoke and abuse.”—A. and N.Z. Cable. INDUSTRIES CLUB DINNER. FUTURE OF AVIATION. GENERAL BRANCKER’S VIEWS. LONDON, October 5. The Imperial Industries . Club entertained the overseas Prime Ministers at luncheon. Sir George Chubb, the president, in proposing the health of the guests, said that the Imperial Conference was British in its constitution, but international in its results. Mr Massey, discussing New Zealand’s renewed prosperity, mentioned the reductions in taxation. An Interrupter: Why don’t you came here? Mr Massey : 1 am here. —(Cheers.) Übntinuing, Mr Massey said that the spirit of all the dominions was exemplified by New Zealand when it sent him with a free hand. The people said: “We stand for the strong unity of the Empire, and we will bo perfectly satisfied with you when you come back.” Major-general Sir VV. S. Brancker (Director of Civil Aviation), who described himself as a fanatical believer in aviation, emphasised the importance of the quick transit of mails, samples, bonds, and contracts, which, he declared, would greatly assist the Empire’s progress. Ho predicted that within two years airships twice the size that had ever been conceived up to the present would be travelling from Britain in 26 hours, and to Australia in 200 to 250 hours.—Sydney Sun Cable! SINGAPORE BASE. DOMINIONS TO SUPPLY MATERIALS. LONDON, October 5. It is understood that when the British Government submits its Singapore proposals to the Imperial Conference it does not intend that the dominions shall give financial assistance, but that they shall contribute the services and materials for the work of construction.—-Sydney Sun Cable.