FATE OF LEAGUE

Taranaki Daily News, 1 June 1934, Page 5

FATE OF LEAGUE

CRUCIAL PERIOD REACHED AGREEMENT A VITAL NEED FRENCH LEADER EMPHATIC “NO TIME FOR RETICENCE” ARMAMENT RACE DANGER 6 British Wireless. Geneva, May 30. M. Louis Barthou, French Foreign Minister, following Sir John Simon at the meeting of the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference, asserted that not only was the fate of the conference at stake, but also that of the League. The League was a vital necessity for France. The moment for reticence, complacence and even a possible compromise was past. Referring to the danger of a race for aerial armaments, M. Bart Lou declared that France was not preoccupied with the air menace alone. “Certain countries are favoured by their geographical position, being protected by land and sea,” he said, “but Fran ;e is exposed on all three dimensions. France is loyally carrying out the Paris Agreement of 1925. We were asked not to give motor engines to those to whom they are prohibited, and we accordingly took firm and precise measures.” (This is generally regarded as a reference to the recent question in the House of Commons regarding aeroplane engines supplied to Germany). M. Barthou then quoted Sir John Simon’s speech on October 14, 1932, adding: ‘‘Sir John Simon has just confirmed Germany’s withdrawal as unjustified. Do you think that I should be silent? Shall not I consider the reality and gravity of the situation? I do not bring charges against anybody, but the truth is that Germany has left the League. Is that a reason why the principle agreed to on October 14, 1933, should no longer be valid?” “Germany has budgeted for a great increase in military expenditure. This includes certain mysterious hidden items. Is not this tantamount to asking the world ‘What does it matter about guarantees of security. We have left the League and regained our full liberty and are strong in our aim to embark on a policy of rearmament.’ ” M. Barthou highly praised Mr. Arthur Henderson (president of the conference) and said that the paternity of plans was not Sir John Simon’s monopoly. “Let me reassert France’s concrete plan of January 1, 1934, for a parallel and progressive reduction of armaments, accompanied by necessary guarantees of security,” he said. “I feel that between extreme optimists and pessimists are men of action and goodwill Who are bound to declare war upon war, and who will be able to confer the greatest and noblest of all boons upon humanity.” It is generally felt that M. Barthous speech will seriously prejudice the possibility of an Anglo-French disarmament accord.

TIRADE AGAINST BRITAIN ATTACK BY M. BARTHOU SENSATION AT GENEVA By Telegraph—Press Assn—Copyright. Rec. 8 p.m. London, May 3. . M. Barthou caused a sensation at the Disarmament Conference. Rising immediately after Sir John Simon had read a carefully prepared statement, M. Barthou burst into a torrent of words, punctuated with irony and invective. He paced the rostrum pouring out a bitter attack against the British attitude. The Daily Express says a gaping chasm wJs revealed between Britain and France. Mr. Bartlett in the News-Chronicle says Sir John Simon’s defence of Germany’s right to equality was so outspoken that people .who heard him deny that right in October were bewildered and amazed. M. Barthou’s speech was inexcusable in a gathering supposed to further international understanding. The Times says M. Barthou hardly brightened the prospects of the conference. Indeed, his speech was so disconcerting that Mr. Henderson postponed the sitting of the Commission until June 1 to enable the delegates to reflect. The proceedings at Geneva are given prominence in the morning papers. Several indulge in sensational headlines such as “Open Fight at Geneva,” “France’s Onslaught on Britain,” “Complete Breach.” It is recalled, however, that a section of the London Press has long been agitating for the winding up of the Disarmament Conference on the ground that it is useless and dangerous. These papers seize sentences of M. Barthou s speech in support of their attitude. Sir John Simon does not regard the attack as a personal one. He dined with M. Barthou in the evening. It was M. Barthou’s maiden speech at the General Commission and was obviously delivered under the influence of strong emotion. M. Barthou bitterly opposed German rearmament. He was inclined to think Britain was too much favouring the German viewpoint.. . Delegates afterwards said the explosion had to come and would clear the atmosphere. The TimesJn an editorial says M. Barthou had string ground when he insinuated that Britain was not helpful in the matter of security. Certainly the ment should have made up its mind by now and informed the French and other Governments what it was prepared to do in the direction of guaranteeing a new convention.