GENOA CONFERENCE

Southland Times, Issue 19509, 8 May 1922, Page 5

GENOA CONFERENCE

CRUCIAL MOMENT AT HAND BREAKDOWN OR ADJOURNMENT MR GARVIN ON THE SITUATION. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, May 6. (Received May 7, 5.5 p.m.) Mr J. L. Garvin, writing from Genoa, states : “We have reached a pinch owing to the Franco-Belgian demand and Russia’s inevitable refusal. I anticipate that the Conference next week will either breakdown or adjourn for a few months. The FrancoBelgian insistence on some universal principle of abstract justice is cheap and futile. Franco-Belgian ideas of politics and economics are inherently and permanently opposed to the Soviet’s, but nothing can put Europe right except agreement for the restoration of property by Russia is impossible, but the Bolsheviks are willing to compensate by means of concessions and shares to the extent of enabling western capital to fare as profitably under the Soviet as the Czar. “ If the Conference adjourns it will give both sides an opportunity for studying Mr Lloyd George’s non-aggressive pact. Poland is the main difficulty, and the threats of Rumania is another. The Russians are on strong ground regarding both. If Poland’s present impossible frontier could voluntarily be revised a ten years’ pact could be easily attained in a few months hence. “ Apart from political difficulties the technical commissions’ solid work will not be destroyed. They have laid the foundations of a general law of economics and intercourse which might last for centuries. The Soviet is being besieged by concession hunters, aipong whom France and Belgium are sure to figure. Later Russia’s oil attractions are certain to attract American and European commercial men, whatever the Governments may decide.” Mr Garvin, writing in the Observer, says : “ Genoa by Tuesday will know whether the Conference has achieved any common policy for broken Europe or thrown back the pieces into the melting pot. It looks as though what the Conference’s friends wanted will not fully be attained, neither what its enemies expected. “ The present situation is unparalled in international affairs. M. Poincare dictated orders and refusals like a suzerain. He would not come to Genoa or confer with the Allies at San Remo. He merely showered negatives, offering no constructive alternative. M. Poincare has been absolutely the enemy of the whole method and spirit of the Conference from the beginning, desiring its failure. He is the most stubborn figure in the world’s affairs, full of logical ability without a single ray of imagination or humour. Temporarily M. Poincare is fundamentally antagonistic to Mr Lloyd George. On the contrary, Mr Lloyd George and M. Barthou had become friends, the latter like everyone else who came under Mr Lloyd George’s personal spell. Had M. Barthou attended the Conference as Premier it would have been a decisive success. “ The Conference from first to last has been dull, but the conditions were unequal. Mr Lloyd George, in the plenitide of his decisive conciliatory powers, has been in the open with M. Poincare in ambush. The latter does not believe in the Conference. He will finally obstruct the restoration of any complete European system. While chaos continues the French njjjitary policy reigns supreme. Until M. Poincare resigns or the present reactionary French Chamber has been dissolved France will not work for European cohesion.” M. BARTHOU AND MR LLOYD GEORGE. A CORDIAL INTERVIEW. THE MEMORANDUM APPROVED. GENOA, May 6. (Received May 7, 11.5 p.m.) M. Barthou returned and saw Mr Lloyd George this evening. He stated that he was instructed by his Government not to give final approval to the memorandum until Belgium approved it, but he was confident that the formula would be found. Otherwise France approved of the memorandum and wished sincerely for the success of the Conference. Mr Lolyd George replied that the next step was to await the Russian reply. He had noticed that the French papers made reference to a meeting of the Supreme Council at Genoa. What he had suggested was a meeting of the Allied signatories to the Versailles Treaty. M. Barthou replied that his Government clearly understood this, but his Government was not prepared for any such conversations until after May 31. It is understood that the conversations which have been proceeding past two days between the British and Italian delegates and Kr assin and Tchitcherin have yielded absolutely negative results. The latter showed themselves decidedly intransigent in their demand. It is alleged that they asked for a minimum immediate grant to the Soviet Government of three milliards of gold roubles. M. BARTHOU’S DIFFICULTIES PARIS, May 5. M. Barthou before returning to Genoa stated: “I have a difficult task to accomplish, but shall not be dragged into any trap. I hope France’s rights will triumph.” TCHITCHERIN INTERVIEWED COMMENT ON THE MEMORANDUM ROME, May 9. The Tribuna publishes an interview with Tchitcherin in which he declares that the memorandum aggravates the conditions on which the accord was based by Mr Lloyd George’s letter of April 20. Tchitcherin said he could not accept interdiction on Russian territory of propaganda against capitalism. He also resented the Soviet’s right to negotiate with Rumania on the problem of Bessarabia being interdicted. Tchitcherin said the whole proposal in regard to a moratorium for Russia’s debts was too vague, and he considered the proposed arbitral tribunal infringed Russia’s sovereign rights. EUROPEAN COMPLICATIONS AGREEMENTS WITH RUSSIA LONDON, May 4. An Australian just returned from Genoa declares that five small nations north of, adjoining and including Poland, entered into agreements with Rulssia for trade reciprocity before the Conference. The possibility of the Conference dispensing without result fills them with consternation, likewise the Little Entente headed by Czechoslovakia because they will be caught between Germany and Russia in the event of any war and ground to dust. Independent advices concerning Russia incontestably disclose that the Bolsheviks cannot continue under present conditions because they have exhausted the avenues of spoliation and robbery. The Russians must obtain loans or trade reciprocity or else be smashed. Germany asserts she is unable to pay reparations without trade. Italy is bankrupt and must get raw materials. France prefers to seize the Ruhr rather than assist to resurrect German trade. The position is that Britain must choose between trading with Germany or Russia, which she desires to do or breaking with France, which she does not wish. If the Genoa Conference fails to achieve something & war will be almost inevitable,