THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20799, 19 August 1929, Page 8

THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

The deadlock at The Hague Conference still continues. As it lias already lasted for the best part of a fortnight the fate of the conference cannot now remain much longer in the balance. In tho trial of strength over the issue introduced by Mr Snowden, Great Britain has been in the minority of one Power to four. That in no way, of course, affects the justice of her claims to better treatment under the new plan for the settlement of the reparations question. The representatives of the Powers met at The Hague to consider the Young plan in the hope of being able to agree upon the terms of a final settlement with Germany. But they had no reason to assume that the plan which was formulated by the experts at Paris embodied the last word on the question. The experts certainly declared the plan to be one that must bo accepted in its entirety or not at all. What authority they had to make any such declaration—any more than what authority they had to vary the reparation percentages —they did not state. Clearly it must rest with the Governments concerned to decide whether the plan is “ indivisible ” or otherwise. It docs not follow that the whole scheme must go by the board because the Powers, believing some portion of it requires modification, cannot sec their way to accept it as a whole. Were it otherwise, a conference of the Powers would have been unnecessary. The whole purpose of the conference' was to ascertain how far the plan was acceptable to each of them. If the plan were indivisible, it would have been impossible for the four Powers ranged against Great Britain in the present argument to temporise and propose modifications to the extent that they have done. The trouble is that as yet they have not gone far enough. Air Snowden required on behalf of Great Britain the restoration of

£2,400,000 which, under the terms of the Young Plan, would be taken, by a variation in the allocations, from her share of reparations. The other Powers have, it is reported, offered to concede that SO per cent, of the deficiency shall be made up. If they can go thus far why should they make any insuperable difficulty respecting the remaining 20 per cent? The restoration of Great Britain’s original share of reparations under the Spa percentages is not the whole issue that has been introduced, for there also is the matter of unconditional annuities, and that of deliveries from Germany in bind, but it is the point of disagreement to which prominence has chiefly been given. The position now is that after all these days of deliberation the proposals submitted by the other Powers are, as Mr Snowden has firmly informed them, not such as Great Britain can accept. Mr Snowden has been distinctly uncompromising in his reply. He is not outwardly disturbed about the suggestion that he will go down to history as the “ grave-digger ” of the conference. The point to be resolved is whether he will return to England, convinced that it is of no use remaining longer at The Hague, or whether the other Powers will sec the advisability of amending and improving their proposals. If the claim of Great Britain is just—and already they have gone a good deal of the way to recognise it as such—they cannot lay at her door the responsibility for a breakdown of the conference. Certainly the trend of the discussions does not encourage the idea that their response to Mr Snowden’s latest uncompromising px’ononnceraent will be favourable to the extent of according the satisfaction he requires for the British claims. But the, importance of the purpose for which the representatives of the Powers have assembled is such 'that'" it is greatly to be hoped that they will not permit the conference to be abortive in the manner that is threatened 1 , simply because of - the unwillingness of the majority of them to recognise those inequalities in the Young Plan to which Great Britain has felt compelled to take exception.