ENTENTE THREATENED

Southland Times, Issue 19510, 9 May 1922, Page 5

ENTENTE THREATENED

DEVELOPMENTS AT GENOA MR LLOYD GEORGE ANGRY HEATED INTERVIEW WITH MR BARTHOU. (By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (The Tunes.) LONDON, May 8. (Received May 8. 7.45 p.m.) Hie Time’s special representative at the Genoa Conference draws attention to recent differentiations between the British and Italian attitude at the Conference. He remarlw that so long as there was hope of the Conference proving a success Italy stood so close in relationship to Britain that her movements were almost undistinguishable. Now Italian semi-official writers have received a hint to be kinder to France, and as ill by enchantment the press is suddenly commenting with obvious displeasure upon the alleged attempt of the British and Dutch to obtain the world’s oil monopoly from the Bolsheviks. Meanwhile Signor Schanzer has assured M. Barthou that whatever happens at the Conference. FrancoItalian relations must remain cordial. The correspondent adds that according to reliable information Mr Lloyd George, in an interview with M. Barthou, spoke in most violent and extreme language. In substance he said that the Entente was ended and Britain henceforth considered herself free to seek other friendships. He said his advisers had been long urging him to make an agreement with Germany, even at lhe cost of abandoning the British claim to reparations. France had made the choice between British and Belgian friendship, and the British Government felt deeply the conduct of France. Henceforth France might stand alone with Belgium. He did not blame M. Barthou, who had done his best to be conciliatory, but he had no freedom of action. British opinion was hostile to France. His advisers, especially Lord Birkenhead, were constantly advising him to break with France. A REVERSAL OF POLICY. PREMIER’S STATEMENT CONDEMNED. LONDON, May 7. (Received May 8, 11.30 p.m.) The Times, in a leader, strongly condemns Mr Lloyd George’s statement to M. Barthou. It says: “As a declaration of a proposed reversal of the policy of the British Government it is of the gravest character. We do not know whether it was intended as a thieat or as an expression of definite opinion. In any case it is of a nature to provoke alarm. The Premier has no right or authority to subject the people of Britain to such ignominy as to force them into a choice between the tried friendship of France or an alliance with the Germans and Bolsheviks. THE PARTING OF THE WAYS. FRENCH CORRESPONDENTS’ PREDICTION. PARIS, May 7. Correspondents at Genoa say Mr Lloyd 1 George has reached the turning point in his outlook on the Conference. If the Russians accept the memorandum, Britain will propose that negotiations be continued despite the abstention of France and Belgium. If the Russians refuse, Mr Lloyd George will make an important statement, announcing that England has done all she can, but owing to the obstinacy of the Russians and certain Allied powers Britain will be forced to isolate herself from European politics. FRANCE AND BELGIUM. STATEMENT BY M. BARTHOU. GENOA, May 7. M. Barthou, speaking to the press representatives, said that in siding with Belgium, France had no desire to choose between two friends, but thought that in this matter of private property restitution in Russia, Belgium was nearer the truth. He did not know what formula for conciliation would be found, but it was possible the Russians, by not accepting the memorandum, would make everybody agree in the end. “If they try to shuffle again we won’t stand it.” If the Russians did not agree, then the nonAggression pact would not be discussed. Without Russia it was useless as other Powers, even Germany, had signed the Treaty of Versailles, and therefore Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of N ations.

ENGLISH CORRESPONDENTS PESSIMISTIC. ENTENTE’S EXISTENCE AT STAKE. i (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, May 7. English correspondents at Genoa adopt increasingly pessimistic views of the possibilities of a deadlock. The Daily Chronicle’s correspondent, referring to M. Barthou’s statement regarding the Russian reply, says M. Poincare’s refusal to meet Mr Lloyd George is disappointing. It is not too much to say the whole existence of the Entente is at stake, not because of anything Mr Lloyd George may say or do, but because the British public thinks France is obstructing the peace on which it has set its heart. GERMAN ATTACK ON MR LLOYD GEORGE. BERLIN, May 7. Mr Lloyd George is in the unhappy position of being rended with equal ferocity by Berlin, Paris, and London. Vorwaerte makes an amazing attack on the Prime Minister, alleging scathingly that he made the fate of Europe synonymous with his electioneering plans. From the first hour Mr Lloyd George, threatened by Parliamentary extremists, has fought for peace at any price- Perception of this fact at Genoa is the reason why the proceedings have been interrupted throughout by incidents. Mr Lloyd George will submit to great provocation if thereby he can take home a record of achieved results. Hence no one at Genoa is disposed to take the various crises seriously. The paper attributes the ever-widening breach between England and France to the approach of the British delegation to Russia. Mr Lloyd George’s imperative need is the successful conclusion of the Conference. ITALIAN FOREBODINGS. BRITISH AND FRENCH VIEWPOINTS ANTAGONISTIC. ROME, May 7. The press is full of forebodings of the approaching dissolution of the Conference or a rupture between England and France. The Giornale D’ltalia says the two countries approach the question of European construction from totally different standpoints. For England reconstruction is a necessity, but it is a matter of indifference to Franco, as she has no unemployment, and home and colonial markets absorb practically the whole Of France’s industrial productions. In these respects Italy’s interests are the same as England’s and she naturally supports Mr Lloyd George. The Tempo is enthusiastic about Mr Lloyd George’s stupendous battle for general reconciliation. *The Tribuna contrasts Mr Lloyd George’s constant babbling to the press with M. Tchitcherin’s impenetrable silence, and wittily describes Tchitcherin as a diplomatist of the old school.