IN THE BALANCE

Southland Times, Issue 19515, 15 May 1922, Page 5

IN THE BALANCE

THE GENOA CRISIS BRITAIN PROPOSES TRUCE MR LLOYD GEORGE’S APPEAL FRENCH DELEGATE’S STRONG OPPOSITION (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association). GENOA, May 13. (Received May 14, 5.5 p.m.) The First Commission had a long and serious debate. Mr Lloyd George said that the Russian answer was provoking and unsatisfactory, and typical of the diplomacy which always introduced argumentative documents at times when they were really trying to do business. However, in its substance thrare was room to come to some arrangement. Everyone had a difference with public opinion and it was not right for another statesman to criticise them too severely. To break on the document would be very serious for Europe and Asia. If the conference sent the Russians back to a great population in the grip of famine and pestilence, they would feel that the door of Hope was shut on them with a clang. No one could doubt that fierce resentment would ensue, which would be a menace not only to Russia but to the peace of the world. He was certain the Russians felt the need of credits and knew the conditions on which they could be obtained. He begged the people to regard the position from a practical standpoint and not to make most of the clash of principle between two antagonistic systems. He, therefore, proposed they should, in reply to the Russians, accept the suggested mixed commission or commissions which deal with the three questions: Private property, debts, and credit*. It was essential that the commissions should be mixed. Another meeting of London experts would be a waste of time. One thing, however, was essential: the commissions could not work in an atmosphere of menace and semi-hostility, while armies were threatening frontiers and propaganda was rife. He thus proposed a truce on the basis of the de facto frontiers with a cessation of propaganda on everyone’s part. Finally he proposed that a sharp Note should be sent in reply to Russia’s Note, which was needed.

In answer M. Barthou said that, acting on instructions from Paris, he was unable to discuss a reply to a document which the French had not joined in sending. Speaking on Mr Lloyd George’s proposals, he said, with regal’d to the suggested commissions, that the conference had been discussing for five weeks without making progress the questions, which these commissions were to investigate. The Russian reply disowned the Cannes conditions. The French delegation had done what it could to reach a decision. He did not think a commission could achieve any result. It simply meant starting the Genoa Conference over again in another form. He reserved the right to consider the commissions, always provided the Russians were not represented. The commissions should be confined to the Allies and neutrals. Perhaps America and France could not accept Russian representation. He saw a grave menace in the proposed truce, inasmuch as propaganda would continue. Signor Schanzer said he was not prepared to take the responsibility of saying the Powers should abandon efforts to secure peace after only five w r eeks’ work. They should not refuse Mr Lloyd George’s practical proposals. The danger of a rupture was very great and the gravest of all was a parting on the Note, by disunion on what was after all a matter of procedure in regard to the goal they wished to attain. It would be a terrible disillusionment if the conference broke on a flimsy issue like that. He appealed to M. Barthou to reconsider his view. The oom mission adjourned for a few hours to see whether better counsels would prevail MORE HOPEFUL VIEW AN AGREEMENT POSSIBLE GENOA, May 14. (Received May 14, 11.50 pm.) When the commission resumed it was announced that conversations between Mr Lloyd George and M. Barthou had progressed satisfactorily and a compromise was likely. They meet again to-morrow to continue conversations. Representatives of the other powers expressed opinions on the truce. Baron Ishii regarded the Conference’s work as much too important to be lightly abandoned. The whole world, he said, regarded an understanding as most important. He approved of the British proposals. Switzerland was enthusiastic over the truce proposal. M. Barthou said he hoped an agreement was in sight. He hoped they would settle the question whether the commission would be mixed or otherwise. On the question of the Pact both England and France desired to learn the news of the other countries. Mr Lloyd George said they should agree now upon, the place and date of the meeting of the Russian commission, He emphasised the great importance of coming to an agreement at Genoa, because it was obvious if the powers started making separate agreements great. trouble might arise. The Polish delegate said that Poland a separate agreement with Russia, but was anxious to have a general agreement. M. Jasper said that Belgium also wanted a settlement at Genoa and he would be sorry if Belgium came to be regarded as interfering with it. Signor Schanzer said that Italy already had a commercial agreement with Russia, which was still unsigned. They should fix the period in which the commission should report. He suggested three months. JAPAN’S ATTITUDE STATED TOKIO, May 13. (Received May 14, 11.30 pm.) The Foreign Office announces that Japan has no intention of making a separate treaty with Russia, but will abide by the

POINCARE’S PERSISTENCY. WHAT MR LLOYD GEORGE SAID. TO BARTHOU. LONDON, May 13. (Received May 14, 5.5 p.m) Mr J. L. Garvin, the Observer's Genoa correspondent, says: A final decision was expected some days ago, but it was postponed by shuffling for a few days more. The conference will be over next week and may finish in a quiet agreement on Thursday in an open sitting with utterances which will resound through Europe. M. Barthou returned from Paris with a. double ultimatum from M. Poincare framed to shatter the conference. M. Poincare practically issued orders to the conference of thirty nations in general and Mr Lloyd George in particular. At first M. Barthou was instructed to support Belgium unconditionally on the pedantic and useless property clause, framed regardless of the practical interests of British commerce, the employment, of which few of our neighbours understand and fewer still consider reasonable Brussels in this matter was the willing mouthpiece of Paris itself. The second ultimatum was worse. This was that M. Poincare would not meet Mr Lloyd George and the other signatories to the Treaty of Versailles to discuss before May 31 what will happen thereafter in the expected case of a German default. Never in the record of modern ententes and alliances lias the premier of one country been treated with more peremptory disregard by the premier of another. Mt Lloyd George, to secure the attendance of the French delegation at Genoa and to keep it there, made concession after concession and con-

sentend to the exclusion of forbidden subjects from the formal proceedings, though reparations, revision and disarmament were bound to be vital matters for debate at all private meetings. By this cumulative persistence and course of dictation M. Poincare, of his own initiative, killed the entente. Mr Lloyd George speke to M. Barthou and other French representative. It is an egregious and futile falsehood to say that he threatened that Britain would not only dissolve the entente, but seek an anti-French connection with other powers. What Mr Lloyd George said was that M. Poincare showed not the remotest knowledge of the British nation and acted regardless of ■the honour and strength of Britain or those interests and commerce, the existence of which concern its masses and classes alike. Mr Lloyd George said that henceforth Britain would be with any power for peace and with no power against it. REASON FOR BRITISH PROPOSAL LONDON, May 12. The Australian Press Association’s Genoa correspondent, states that the Russian reply produced something akin to pessimism. It is felt that the Conference has outlived its usefulness and that the effort suggested by the British to endeavour to secure a truce is merely to prevent the Conference being an entire failure. The Russian suggestion that foreign capitalists have not hesitated to invest capital in Russia encourages Russia in the belief that when the Conference terminates, whatever its result, there are groups of financiers and commercial men waiting to exploit her resources. This, together with the agreements made with Germany and other countries fortifies her against the demands of the Allied political representatives. If the truce can be accomplished the Conference will probably adjourn and reassemble at a future date at a place not yet named. It is understood that France has no objection to the truce, but may raise the question of sanctions to make it effective.

PLUNDERING CHURCHES. HOW THE BOLSHEVIKS WENT TO WORK. ROME, May 13. (Received May 14, 5.5 p.m.) The Pope’s intervention at Genoa is connected with the Soviet’s wholesale looting of Russian churches and monasteries, catholic as well as orthodox suffering. After the Soviet had used up two milliards of roubles taken from the gold reserve, which was used for revolutionary propaganda abroad, the government decided to raid the treasuries of the churches. Dedicatory jewels from Ikons were sold abroad, precious metal being systematically melted down by the people’s commissinaries. They visited every town village in collecting many tons of gold and silver. Thus 223 milliard roubles worth of silver was collected. The people in some towns, including Smolensk, supported by the clergy opposed the plundering and riots followed. There were a number of casualties elsewhere.

The Bolsheviks called to a meeting of workmen and explained that the necessity for confiscations was due to famine. The workmen then set to work themselves rifling the churches and monasteries. Five daps work in Kaasniapresna resulted in five tons of silver and much gold being collected from fifty-one churches. The Patriarch issued a malediction upon the looters, but it had no result.