HADLOCK AT GENEVA.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1924, Page 5

HADLOCK AT GENEVA.

IMPASSE OVER PROTOCOL. ATTITUDE OF JAPAN. NO MODIFICATION MADE. THREAT NOT TO SIGN. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 29, 5.5 p.m. London, Sept. 29. The Geneva correspondent of the Central News says M. Loucher and M. Briand conferred at length with Baron Adatehi (Japan), with a view to obtaining modification of Japan’s attitude on the arbitration protocol, but Baron Adatchi was adamant, and continued to threaten that Japan would not sign. All correspondents emphasise the seriousness of the position that Japan has created. They admit that without Japan’s signature the protocol would be useless and the efforts of M. Herriot and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in the direction of disarmament will be frustrated. The Geneva correspondent of the Daily Telegraph says that the Japanese did not oppose the protocol, and the committee therefore believed that Baron Adatchi’s amendment was due to special instructions from Tokio. The Morning Post correspondent considers that the Japanese arom propre has received hard knocks lately, particularly from the American Exclusion ActDevastated within and insulted abroad, she is ready to seize anything to restore her prestige and satisfy public opinion. Other nationals, realising this, are exerting themselves to the utmost towards a compromise, but hitherto no progress has been made. Japan unquestionably wants sooner or later to make the immigration question a compulsory subject for arbitration when entailing a risk or war, but this other nations, including Australia, whose internal policy would be first affected, are opposing strongly on the grounds that it would be an encroachment of domestic sovereignty, opening the door to interference in all sorts of internal questions, which would soon put an end to the League. The British attitude is most concise. Britain will refuse to sign the protocol rather than give away the principle of non-interference in domestic matters. NEW POSITION DISCUSSED. NO PROGRESS MADE. REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE. Received Sept. 29, 8.25 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 29. The first committee, after a prolonged and animated discussion, adopted the chairman’s report on the judicial position of the protocol. An unexpected outcome was the exception taken by the Japanese to article 6 (not five) relating to the action ot the council in dealing with an aggressor. Baron Adatehi read a declaration of the Japanese delegation, the substanoe of which is aa follows:—“The ideal of the League is to settle pacifically all contortions between nations . The draft protocol, however, does not make good the gaps in the covenant in this connection, inasmuch as article fifteen ol the covenant continues to permit a State to escape international investigation under the pretext that the matter in within its exclusive competence, even it the matter infringes the honour, prejudices and vital interests of another State. According to article 6of the protocol the League, while abstaining from lending its pacific action to the State wronged, threatens to consider that State an aggressor should it adopt measures for jhe defence of its legitimate interests. Thus the draft protoeol would lead to the protection of a State which rejected the supremacy of inter national justice and would condemn a State which simply asked for imSartial application and justice. The apanese delegation, which had already experienced great difficulty in accepting article fifteen of the covenant, regrets U m unable to adhere to the illogical aggravation of the stipulation contained article 6 of the protocol.” Senor Fernnandz (Brazil) said the amendment did not favour the attainment of the object the committee had iprwiew, and therefore he appealed for its withdrawal. The chairman (M. Politis) favoured the amendment, pointing out that there had been exaggeration on both aides. The present wording of article 6 was too rigid. M. Rollin (Belgium) declared that the amendment was not destructive. Each State had a right to settle its own disputes. There were several heated in the course of the discussion and Signor Scialoja (Italy) suggested an examination of the protocol in a .calmer atmosphere by a committee of experts. tM. Loucheur declared that if the council did not do its duty any provision in the protocol would be in vain. He proposed that the Japanese amendment be referred to a sub-committee. Baron Adaichie assented and the committee rose. SCOPE OF SANCTIONS. PUNISHING DEFAULTING STATES. Received Sept. 29, 7.40 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 29. The judicial clauses of the protocol, as drafted by the sub-committee and presented to the committee, impose the seme sanctions on non-member States a» upon members in the event of their refusal to conform to the new procedfor a pacific settlement. A The. Assembly decided to postpone till ■ nsit session consideration of a resoluF tion, submitted on behalf of Britain, i ©fining the extent of an economic I Cockade against any State violating the Covenant. A resolution, which is in the nature of an amendment of article 16 of the (Covenant, enjoins all members rigidly to enforce the cessation of financial, commercial and personal relations, direct

or indirect, between them and a deaf ulting State. COST OF THE LEAGUE. DECREASE FOR NEXT YEAR. Received Sept. 29, 5.5 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 28. The draft Budget for 1925, to be submitted to the assembly of the League, totals 22.658,000 gold franc®, a diminution of 670,000 compared with 1924. Th? fourth committee, of which Baron Adatehi (Japan) is chairman, passed a credit for the labour of the expert entrusted with the drawing up of an amendment to covenant fore-shadowed in the disarmament protocol. REASON FOR JAPAN’S MOVE. AMERICAN EXCLUSION QUESTION. ATTITUDE OF NEW ZEALAND. MAY NOT ACCEPT DEMANDS. Received Sept. 29, 5.5 p.m. Geneva, Sept. 28. The Japanese situation still overshadows the League’s activities. A lengthy conversation between M. Briand and Baron Ishii (Japan) will probably result in a conference between MBriand, M. Loucheur, Mr. Hurst, Lord Parmoor, Baron Ishii, and Baron Adatehi, with Mr. Groom as chairman. Ths first committee, in which the dispute originated, considers the Japanese amendment to the article withdrawn, and therefore beyond further discussion, but others hope for a settlement without involving Japan’s withdrawal of her support of the protocol. Japan also desires to eliminate a clause in article six, which declares a nation an aggressor if it attacks another nation over a matter which the international court has ruled a domestic problem. This proposal indicates Japan’s intention to avoid being named an aggressor in the event of her attacking America over the exclusion of Japanese or interfering with Chinese internal affairs. The deletion of the clause would allow Japan, in a dispute over “white Australia,” to proceed to attack Australia without immediately becoming an aggressor, although the matter was previously ruled by the international court as domestic and beyond the League’s interference. The Japanese now hint that unanimity will not prevail among the British and Dominion delegates owing to India’s antagonism to a “white Australia.” Sir James Allen requested Dr. Benes to explain the position of a nation not signing the protocol, and pointed out that New Zealand wanted to know her position in the event of her refusal to sign. Dr. Benes answered that the protocol w'ould merely continue to be bound by the League’s covenant. Previously Sir James Allen slightly amended the preamble to the protocol, making less definite the assembly’s request to members of the League to accept the protocol. These, and also minor remarks, indicate that New’ Zealand finds difficulty in acquiescing to the protocol demands, and may refuse to sign.