THE OTAUO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUSTT I2, 1929. THE REPARATIONS QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20793, 12 August 1929, Page 8

THE OTAUO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUSTT 12, 1929. THE REPARATIONS QUESTION.

Distinct uncertainty attends the issue of the Hague Conference on Reparations. The prospects for the adoption of what is known as the \ oung Plan, agreed to by the experts at Paris in June, arc far from promising. Indeed, unless Mr Snowden should be guilty of an unexpected volte face the acceptance of the Young Plan, as it stands at present, may be regarded as impossible. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt surprised the representatives of the other Powers at The Hague by the vigour of the stand which he has taken up. Mr Snowden’s opposition to the Young Plan is based on the contention that it is unjust to Great Britain and would involve her in sacrifices which she should not be asked to accept. The scheme evolved by the experts has commended itself on the ground of providing a solution of the difficult problem of* reaching a final settlement of the German reparations question. In that respect the experts deliberating at Paris were credited, no doubt rightly, with a great achievement. But their recommendations were of course in no way binding on the Governments concerned. They were arrived at apparently only with considerable regard to the view that some concessions must be made by the Allied nations for the sake of reaching agreement and a final settlement. But Mr Snowden raises the question, and its pertinence seems undeniable, of why Great Britain should be expected to bear the brunt of the sacrifice. The experts have declared their report to be “ indivisible,” . which presumably means that it must be accepted or rejected in toto. Mr Snowden repudiates (hat argument. The experts, he contends, went beyond their province in modifying the Spa percentages governing the apportionment of reparations, and the contemplated division of the annuities is indefensible in that it would mean a loss to Britain of £2,400,000 a year, while Prance, Italy, and Belgium would all bo gainers. Undoubtedl, Mr Snowden has presented the British case in a resolute and forcible way at The Hague. The manner of his argument may, as most of the Homo papers seem to agree, be less than tactful in its possible tendency to distm*b the harmony of international relations, but in the comment passed upon his attitude it is no surprise to note that oven political opponents arc ready to concede a meed of admiration for his ” robust patriotism.” The comments passed by the Italian press upon the stand taken by the British delegation at The Hague are in the worst of taste. One journal has referred to Britain as playing (ho part of Shylock, while another speaks of her “ insatiable voracity and hypocrisy.” A clearer case of " benefits forgot ” could hardly be imagined. Before the Finance Commission at The Hague Mr Snowden pointed out that Britain had settled with Italy a debt of £560,000,000 for the present value of £78,000,000. If the proposals of the \oung Plan were carried out Britain would have to sacrifice another £30,000,000 of this £78,000,000. She would therefore receive for a loan of £560.000,000 only £48,000.000. Mr

Snowden is absolutely uncompromising in his declaration that the British Government will never ratify the Young report in its present form. Unless the representatives of the other Powers agree to a modification of the report in those respects in which it is unacceptable to Great Britain a breakdown of the conference must be regarded as inevitable. Such a result would be very disappointing after the expectations in which the delegations assembled. The somewhat cryptic pronouncement of M. , Briand may seem to be rather reassuring. In any event, something more should be expected of the conference than that it should confess itself incapable of dealing with the situation that has arisen, or should be content to throw responsibility for failure on the Power that happens to be in a minority on the issue that is creating difficulty.