The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1923. LABOUR AND THE RUHR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17009, 6 April 1923, Page 6

The Star. FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1923. LABOUR AND THE RUHR.

The Labour Conference recently sitting in Christchurch settled the Ruhr question to its own satisfaction before it adjourned. It is perhaps surprising to find that its solution of the most difficult problem facing the world just now was anti-French and pro-German. The conference declared (1) that the policy pursued by France was an invasion of a neighbouring State in time of peace, without any justification, and consequently was an act of war; (2) that it was an attack on the rights of the working class, the members \of which were treated as chattels, etc.; (3) that it was an attack on the selfdetermination of the German people. It seems to us that Labour’s Jx>int of view is lop-sided, and that prejudice and ignorance must have misled the Conference into its endorsement of Germany’s grievance. It is the most utter nonsense to say that France’s invasion of the Ruhr is without justification. The civilised world may question the wisdom, of the French occupation of German territory, but it cannot impeach the justice of it. It is necessary to recall the fact that in 1914 Germany, in spite of an international effort to secure a peaceful settlement of a quarrel between Austria and Serbia, set its military machine in motion against France and Belgium. The invaded people tried to defend their right to self-determination, and many of their towns were smashed to powder, while thousands of their people were ruthlessly slaughtered. The damage inflicted by the Germans was beyond anything that might be justified on the elastic grounds of military necessity. The object was to strike a deadly blow at the economic and industrial life of France. When the war was over, and Germany had lost, France and Belgium presented their bill. They knew that they could never collect the full measure of their damage, but after much negotiation, a reparations amount was agreed upon. This amount was whittled down by successive Conferences until the oreditor nations concluded that they had reached the irreducible minimum. Germany never was a willing debtor. Having failed in her attempt to secure world power, she schemed to avoid the reckoning. Her protestations of poverty have assaulted and deafened the ears of the Allied nations, but they have not convinced the people. France, who is bankrupt, is satisfied that Germany can pay, and she intends to make her pay. Britain, on the other hand, is going to pay her creditors, but regards her own foreign loans as irrecoverable. There is no logic in letting Germany oil. The argument that the invasion constitutes an attack on the rights of the German working man is a piece ef mere class rhetoric. The action of France is not taken against the German workers, but against the German nation. The nation was the aggressor in the war, and the nation must be required to pay the penalty. The tender^ regard of the Labour Conference for the German right of self-determina-tion is somewhat belated and quite meaningless, unless it is intended to convey that Germany should herself fix the amount of reparations which she will be pleased to pay- Germany had small regard for self-determination in 1914, and she would have no more regard for it .now if she had achieved her aim. After the war of 1870 her armies kept a firm hold of French territony until the war indemnity was paid by France. Th© recommendations of the Labour Conference are interesting, even if they are a trifle inadequate. Britain is recommended to give no support to France, and to accept nothing from Germany if it turns out that France’s drastic action’ is successful. .Tt is also suggested that all armies of occupation should be withdrawn, and that the whole question should be referred to the League of Nations, which should include Germany and Russia. This is beautiful in theory, but how is it to be applied? France i 6 irrevocably committed to the Ruhr adventure, and will stay in the Ruhr until she is paid cut. Th© League of Nations might settle the problem, but on the other hand it might not, and there is no guarantee that either France or Germany would accept the findings of the League. We would* like to see the League use whatever influence it has to bring about a settlement, but in the meantime it cannot actively intervene and its decisions would not be binding on either party. The problem which is presented by the Ruhr is not to be solved by smooth resolutions or gentle deeds. A recalcitrant debtor, who can pay but won’t pay, is liable to have the bailiffs put in.