LLOYD GEORGE AND THE TREATY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16939, 13 January 1923, Page 8

LLOYD GEORGE AND THE TREATY.

WHAT CAN GERMANY PAY? RELENTLESS ANALYSIS OF POSITION. The following article and all Mr L/loyd George’s subsequent articles are copyright by the United Press in America and all countries. They are copyright in New Zealand and Australia by the Australian Press and the copyright in Britain is held by the “ Daily Chronicle.” Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (.Received January 13, 8.6 a.mj LONDON, January 11. What is the Reparations problem, Mr Lloyd George asks, and why does it appear further from a solution than ever ? The public in all lands are perplexed and worried by its disturbing insolubility. lhe real trouble is not the solving of the problem itself, but Lhe satisfying of the puohc opinion winch surrounds it. a Hit h i*. aK. i OF THE PROBLEM. 1 do not mean to suggest that it ?s easy to ascertain what Germany can pay, or for Germany to keep on paying these sums once tney are ascertained. if the diihcuity were purely linancial it could be overcome, but the heart of the problem lies in the impossibility, at present, of convincing the expectant, indignant, hard hit, and heavily burdened people of France that the sums fixed represent all that Germany is capable of paying. WEALTH AND INDUSTRIES. At first it was too readily taken for granted that the wealth which could bear a war debt of eight thousand millions could surely afford an indimnity of six thousand million, provided that it was made a first charge on the national revenue. It took time for the average mind to appreciate the fundamental difference between payment inside and transmission outside a country. A CONTRAST IN TEMPERAMENT. When I think of the estimates framed in 1919 by highly trained experts as to Germany’s capacity to,j?ay cash over the border. I am not disposed to complain of the French taxpayers’ impatience at the efforts of successive

conferences to cut down those sanguine estimates to feasible dimensions. I am content to point with pride to the fact that the common sense of the more heavily burdener British taxpayer long ago taught him to cut his loss and keep his temper. When his example is followed all round, the reparations problem is already solved, and financiers can then soon find a wav out. WHAT THE TREATY DID NOT PROVIDE. It is always assumed, by those who have not read the \ ersaiiles Treaty and the letter accompanying it, that this much abused and nttie perused document fixed a fabulous indemnity. The Treaty may have its defects, but that is not one of them, for it fixed no payment. It stipulated that the Reparations Commission should assess the damage and the compensation, and also that the Commission (and this la always overlooked) should ascertain how much of the claim Germany was callable of paying. Even so fail* a controversialist as Signor Nitti ignores the latter provision, and treats every alteration in the annuities fixed in May. 1921, as a departure from the Treaty to the victors’ detriment, vrheras every modification was effected under the Treaty’s machinery.

“ NOT THE TREATY GERMANY SIGNED.” But there has undoubtedly been a fundamental departure from "Lhe Treaty, aud the whole trouble has arisen by this departure. The Treaty provided that the Reparations Commission should include an American representative. With the exception of America, all the other Powers were pecuniarily interested in the verdict. At best, therefore, it was not a very impartial tribunal. Still, Britain, as a great trading community, being more interested in a settlement than in the few millions more or loss of indemnity to be wrung oat of Germany, would, with Americans pressure on the Commission, have constituted a guarantee for moderation. Now, the only disinterested party has retired from the tribunal while the most interested party is in the chair, with a casting vote on certain questions. That is not the Treaty Germany signed. HOW MUCH CAN GERMANY ' FAY? The balance of the Treaty has been entirely upset, and what is really needed is to restore the balance to secure a fair verdict on the only question, How much can Germany pay? You must make, up your mind whether you wish to ruin the debtor or recover the cash. If you want beef from a cow you must forgo milk. You must find out what the debtor can pay, and then proceed judiciously, patiently and firmly to recover the amount. I do not mean what he can pay by condemning him to life servitude and poverty. No brave man can stand that long. THE DANGER OF OPPRESSION. if you scrape tlie butter from the bread of every German child for thirty years you may add a milliard or two of gold marks to the indemnity, but that is not what the Treaty intended. You must fix w/iat Germany can pay without condemning a genersttiou of workers to Egyptian bondage, and their children to semi-starvation. Every oppresson, if persisted in, ultimately ends in the “ ruin of the Red Sea.” Europe only just escaped with great loss, from its waters, and we want to cross no other. AMERICA MUST TAKE A HAND. The only hope of a fair and final decision is to secure a representative of America on tho adjudicating body. Unless America takes a hand a real settlement will be postponed until the hour of irreparable mischief strikes. If America cannot occupy her vacant chair, I despair of any real progress being made. The Allies’ Ministers can accept decisions from a body representing the leading Powers who won the war which they dare not take on their own responsibility. That is the essence of the position. The statesmen could accept the judgment of an international tribunal without being taxed with the responsibility for its conclusions. WHAT BRITAIN WOULD RESENT. British opinion will not accept a settlement based on the assumption that abatements in the reparations must be discounted by the British taxpayer. She is willing to stand in with the Allies for loss as well as profit, but Britain would resent bitterly that the loss must necessarily be her share, whilst such profit as there is belongs to others. The Americans, also, will not see the force of a settlement, at their expense, as if they had been condemned to pay an indemnity. The offer to hand over bonds to Britain is an insult to the intelligence of the British public. Let us get back to the Treaty. There is no need to revise it ; all that is needed is to restore it. If America reappears on the tribunal she need not accept the rest of the Treaty.