PEACE OF EUROPE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19504, 12 June 1925, Page 7

PEACE OF EUROPE

THE GUARANTEE PACT. BILATERAL IN CHARACTER. ATTITUDE OF DOMINIONS. OPPOSED TQ PARTICIPATION. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, June 10. Later information concerning the proposed Security Pact shows that the intention is to make it absolutely bilateral and mutual in character. Britain's contribution under the aegis of the League ot Nations is a guarantee of the_ existing Rhine frontiers against aggression both from France and from Germany._ An essential preliminary to the operation ol the Pact is to be Germany’s entry into the League of Nations^ In regard to the criticism ui the do , minions of the proposed Security Tact, it is understood that the dominions departments- are fully informed of the piogiesn of tho negotiations. Undoubtedly their approval and support will be sought before an agreement is reached, but at present there is no agreement which can be submitted to them. All that has been done so far has been to. indicate the responsibility which Britain is prepared to undertake. , , , , . It will be possible, although such a course is not regarded as probable, or Britain to sign an agreement without the adhesion of the dominions, binding only Britain. , . ~ British diplomatic circles emphasise the fact that the proposed pact guarantees Germany against aggression equally with France. . Diplomatic circles understand that it has not been decided whether the League ot Nations will, bo the determining authority to say whether Trance or Germany is the innocent party in the event of tho pact coming into operation, Pho present idea is that tho party which tresses the frontier first will be deemed the offending partv. The choice of entering the pact will not be forced upon Germane by Britain. Germany will act according to her own sentiments. The next step will bo a French Note proposing a Security Pact. Italy and Belgium are meanwhile being asked to join in. _ How tho dominions view the pact is still doubtful. Probably considerable negotiations will be necessary to bring all the dominions into lino, as they have been against such a pledge since the war. The Daily Express, commenting on Air Mackenzie King’s statement in dia.il House of Commons that Canada would not be a party to a Franco-British pact, says: “What Canada says to-da} the other dominions will say to-morrow. Booth Africa, Australia, and New Zealand are as solidly opposed to participation as Canada. Public opinion m the dominions is so strong that no Government will consent to give a written undertaking to intervene in Europe in tho event of something happening in the future, the nature of which no one foresees. If it gave such a pledge a dominion Government would fall. Therefore, the British Government must choose between a pact with France and the solidarity of the Empire. If Mr Chamberlain signs it he will bind Britain, not the Empire. Actually there is no immediate crisis. If Britain is unwise enough to plunge into these new commitments the dominions will simply look on in silence and will reserve complete freedom of action, but the Empire will have developed a quality menacing its essential unity, as the Alother Country will be pledged to go one way and the dominions will have reserved liberty to go another. Air Amery must be aware that serious difficulties have confronted Downing street, Australia, and Canada in maintaining a united Imperial front in regard to foreign affairs, both at Geneva and Washington. The question of submitting migration to Australia to the League of Nations is a small issue compared with those raised by the pact. Ministerial intentions are well-cneaning, but they are looking in the wrong direction, gazing over-much at Europe and too little at the Empire. Wie pact is fatal because it puts the lives of our sons in pawn and shatters the solidarity of the Empire.”—A. and N.Z. and Reuter Cables. SOME POINTED QUESTIONS. DOMINION CIRCLES IN LONDON. LONDON, June 11. Received June 11, at 9.40 p.m.) The Daily Telegraph’s diplomatic correspondent says that surprise is expressed in dominion circles at the inclination of Britain to abandon her former tradition of refusing to enter upon any war commitments before the event. Surprise is also expressed that the dominions should merely have been kept informed since the end of Alarch of what the British Government was doing, and that an agreement should have been sought with foreign governments before it wasdefinito’.y ascertained how far the dominion Governments were prepared to go. Finally the question is asked—and that forcibly—whether in tho event of international trouble or danger Britain would give priority over her fighting resources to her European partners or to tihe dominions. —A. and N.Z. Cable. NO BINDING AGREEMENT. STATEAIENT BY AIR BALDWIN. LONDON, June 10. (Received June 11, at 7.10 p.m.) In the House of Commons Mr Baldwin emphasised the fact that no security pact had yet been signed, nor would one Ive concluded until the House had been enabled fully to discuss the position, which was that the Anglo-French Governments, after considering the- German proposals, were completely agreed on certain basic principles for a pact between the Allies interested in tho Rhineland and Germany on a footing of equality. It vas expected that Belgium and Italy would adhero to the pact. The Prime 'Minister confirmed the statement that the contemplated settlement would bo strictly bilateral It was proposed to obtain Trench sanction to communicate the text to Parliament immediately the Note had been sent to Berlin.—Renter. THE GENEVA CONFERENCE EXPLANATION BY MR CHAMBERLAIN. NO DEPARTURE FROAI PAST POLICY. GENEVA, June 10. (Received June 11, at 8.5 p.m.)_ In regard to the French semi-official statement on an Anglo-French agreement following upon a conference here between Air Chamberlain and M. Briand, Mr Chamberlain suggests that comment on the supposed contents of the Note to Germany should be reserved pending its publication. Ho emphasises that in trie exchange of views with tho French Government Ids Majesty’s Government followed the course indicated in the declaration of the British representative to the League Council and his own statement in the House of Commons on Alarch 24. Reuter, i AI. BRIAND LEAVES GENEVA. ' GENEVA. June 11. (Received June 11, at 8.40 p.rn.) M. Briand has departed for Paris.—A. and N Z. Cable