EUROPE’S PROBLEMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19001, 25 October 1923, Page 7

EUROPE’S PROBLEMS

SEEKING A SOLUTION. AMERICAN PARTICIPATION. CONFERENCE OF POWERS PROBABLE. TWO NOTABLE SPEECHES. Trcoa Aaaociation—By Totagroph—Copyright LONDON, October 23. (Received Oct. 25, at 10.50 p m.) General Smuts was unusually outspoken for a responsible statesman in a. speech at the South African Luncheon Club. At the outset he referred to" the imperial conferences, and said that the preferences which the Government bad already announced were going to he of very great advantage in development. Thev did not amount, however, to what was called Imperial preference. Dealing with the European situation, he advocated a conference of the Governments of the Powers mainly interested in reparations. He declared that neither the Reparations Commission nor the League Council possessed sufficient authority to deal with them. He foresaw that the decisions of the conference regardmg the holding of which negotiations were afoot, might result in the parting of the ways. The absence of any Power should not prevent the rest from foregathering. It was vitally important that the United States should attend as an active member. The reparations figure was generally recognised to be too high, but the most competent authorities were agreed that a reasonable figure was dischargeable without considerable difficulty—if only the political questions such as the Ruhr occupation were out of the way. lie strongly supported the British Government’s view that the French occupation was illegal under the Versailles Treaty. He warned the British industrialists against participation in any of the Ruhr spoils. The speech largely consisted of a criticism of the present French policy, although General Smuts went out of nis way to express admiration and sympathy with the French people. He emphasised however, that Prance might pay some regard to the prospect of Germany’s dissolution. It would be an irreparable disaster to Britain and to the small countries surrounding Germany. He suggested that Britain and the Central European States could give Germany the most valuable moral support. The Empire, which was entitled to an authoritative voice in the affairs of Europe should make it perfectly clear in friendly but unmistakable language “to all whom it might concern ” that in certain eventualities this country would have regard for its own interests, and would take whatever steps were necessary to that end, irrespective of the effect” which they have on an old friendship. In connection with the question of wiping out the inter-Allied debts to Britain and America, General Smuts urged Britain not to lend her aid to the further militarisation of Europe. The people here were already beginning to be seriously alarmed about French armaments on land and in the air. The French Government had also lent large sums to the smaller States around Germany mainly with a view to feeding their ravenous military appetites. He pointed out that if the black hordes of Africa vrere called in to redress the moral and political balance of this Mother Continent of civilisation human principles would be everywhere degraded. In a vital passage of hss speech General Smuts said : “Drift will be fatal; and the half-measures palliatives, and expedients to which Politicians resort when hard pressed will no longer avail. Either a comprehensive settlement must now be effected or the situation will develop tint” it brings its own horrible nemesis and shocks and shames the consciousness of the whole world into action. I vote for a gallant attempt now to save Europe. Faith, courage, and statesmanship arc. wanted. The time has come for the convocation of a great conference of the Powers at which decisions of far-reach-ing importance must be taken. There may even he the parting of the ways and the history of Europe rnav never bo the same 1 hereafter. It will be a. conference unlike anv other held in Europe since the Peace Conference. Its importance cannot be over-estimated. I know that negotiations are afoot to bring about such a conference, and I shall .therefore abstain from saying more ’ except that in my judgment’it is vitally important that the United States should be represented as an active member and bearing its full weight, which, under the circumstances, may he more decisive than that of anv other Power. I have complete confidence in America’s readiness to act at the right time.

“I beg leave to say one word in all modesty to France. I implore her for her own sake, as much as for that of Europe, to return to the faith of her past. Let her on the day of her victory and greatness not forget her noble and historic, mission as the great bearer of Liberal tradition in Europe. T have finished. I have said things which are seldom, if ever, said hy those in responsible positions, but -which must be said frankly unless all hope of a European settlement has to he, riven up.”— A. and N.Z. Cable and Reuter.

BRITAIN AND AMERICA. STRENGTHENING THE BONDS. SPEECH BY COLONEL HARVEY. LONDON, October 23. (Received Oct. 24. at 5.5 p.m.) Colonel Harvey (the retiring United States Ambassador), addressing the Pilgrims’ Club, referred to the tremendous growth of friendship in the United States towards Britain. Alluding to the Imperial Conference, he said that since the council of the Empire had been broadened a famous phrase had disappeared entirely. Nobody now rested comfortably upon the assumption that England would “muddle, through.” Somehow her present disposition was to grapple with difficult problems promptly, energetically, and determinedly, and leave as little as possible to chance. This change of attitude contained a greater promise and hope for Britain and Britishers than any other which had cccu ed in the past war. Colonel Harvey referred to the period of his ambassadorship, making special reference to the Washington Conference, ft that had not happened there would still be hovering over the world in addition to the troubles now besetting it the clouds of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which, having served its original purpose, had become an actual menace to the peace of three great nations, —the clouds of constant and ever-increasing peril and possible, even though accidental, clashes in the Pacific, —and the clouds which from the necessity of self-protection multiplied naval armaments to a degree never before imagined. Proceeding, Colonel Harvey solemnly emphasised the implication contained in iho enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine—‘No participation by tho United States in the political broils of Europe.” “ This,” he said, “is a living part of the doctrine confronting us to-day. The Monroe Doctrine is still the . cornerstone of United States policy—unchanged and unchangeable bv any President and Congress—implanted in the will of the American people. Eleven months ago Mr Hughes offered to provide American adjudication on reparations. America came to the door of Europe, but the door closed. We

were willing to ‘come in,’ but surely we were not expected to smash the door in. The Monroe Doctrine forbids that.” Mr Ha.rvev said he was moved by the presence of Mr Bruce to pay the compliments of a former colony to the Empire’s splendid dominions. He said that compared with the representatives of 1921, when he himself arrived, to-day’s delegation appeared to bo more confident of its footing. Experience had apparently made them not more independent but really more English, enabling them to express their needs in the attractive alliteration—men, money, and markets. Mr Bruce, in proposing the chairman's health, received an ovation both at the commencement and the conclusion of his speech. He paid a graceful tribute to the amazing courage and the almost appalling initiative of the United States in calling together the Washington Conference. It was the only compensation for the denunciation of the treaty with “our courageous and ever-faithful ally, Japan.” Amid laughter and cheers, Mr Bruce reminded Mr Baldwin that the latter aad received his inspiration about the debt settlement from Australia, which was the first to fund its debt. His only regret was that he did not get as good terms from Britain as Britain got from America. It was his obvious duty to submit that Britain would not bo acting ungenerously if she granted Australia similar terms to those which she had received from America.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

Mr Hughes, Secretary of State, addressing the annual meeting of the American Bar Association at Minneapolis on August 30, took occasion to re-state the American position in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and the underlying principles in the policy of the United States in foreign affairs generally. Mr Hughes declared that the following points “seem to deserve special emphasis at this time.” The Monroe Doctrine was not a policy of aggression, it was a policy of selfdefence.

As the policy embodied in ft was distinctively the policy of the United States, “the Government of the United States reserved to itself its definition, interpretation, and application.” “Our attitude is one of independence and not isolation,” he said. “ Our people are still intent upon abstaining from participation in the political strife of Europe. They are not disposed to commit this Government in advance to the use of its power in unknown contingencies; they prefer to reserve freedom of action in confidence of their ability and readiness to respond to every future call of duty. Urey have no desire to put their power in pledge, but they do not shirk co-operation with other nations whenever there is a sound basis for it and the consciousness of community of interest and aim.”

NEWSPAPER COMMENT.

GENERAL SMUTS’,S TACT QUESTIONED. LONDON, October 23. (Received Oct. 24, at 10.50 p.m.) The speeches of General Smuts mid Colonel Harvey were too late for comment generally, but the Daily Express describes General Smuts’s utterance as sensational. The Morning Post points out that Colonel Harvey again undermines the main condition for American intervention—namely, a joint, request by the Allies, which inevitably involves a certain measure of agreement betwfeen France nod Britain. Regarding General Smuts it does not deny the sincerity of this able statesman, but it questions whether the speech will ease the task of Mr Baldwin and M. Poincare in overcoming the effects of thoir predecessors’ disagreements.—A. and N.Z. Cable.