CHAMBERLAIN DEFENDS STATEMENT HE MADE ON REPARATIONS AFFAIRS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18630, 6 December 1928, Page 9

CHAMBERLAIN DEFENDS STATEMENT HE MADE ON REPARATIONS AFFAIRS.

(United Ptmi Asan.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.)

(Received December 6, 11.30 a.m.) RUGBY, December 5. Sir Austen Chamberlain was asked in the House of Commons by Colonel Wedgewood (Labour) whether the British Government took the view that the evacuation of the Rhineland should be dependent upon Germany agreeing to a change in or settlement of reparations. Sir Austen Chamberlain referred Colonel Wedgwood to the reply which he gave on Monday regarding the interpretation of Article 431 of the Versailles Treaty. Replying to a further question, Sir Austen Chamberlain said that he was not aware that the French Government had made the statement that, from the viewpoint of the Allies, only the bringing into force of a practical plan for progressive steps for the liquidation of German reparations could warrant the suppression of the military control of the Rhineland.

Mr E. Thurtle (Labour) asked whether, in connection with the question of continued occupation of the Rhineland, the Foreign Secretary had given consideration of the statement signed by the late President Wilson, M. Clemenceau and Mr Lloyd George, which was issued in June, 1919, in elucidation of Clause 431 of the Peace Treaty.

Sir Austen Chamberlain said that he had done so. “ The declaration in question stated that if Germany, at an earlier date than January 10, 1935, had given proof of her goodwill and satisfactory guarantees to fulfil all her obligations, the associated Powers, namely, this country, France and the United States, would be ready to come to an agreement between themselves for an earlier termination of the period of occupaton. The spirit of the declaration of June, 1919, was at present animating the ex-Allied Powers, as was shown by the resolution adopted in Geneva on September 16 last by the representatives of this country, France, Belgium, Italy, Japan and Germany, approving the opening of official negotiations regarding the early evacuation of the Rhineland.”

Replying to further questions, the Foreign Secretary said that he was quite confident that there were no contradictions between the answer which he gave on Monday and that which he had just given. When he was answering the question on Monday, it was in regard to the interpretation of the treaty, which was binding both upon the ex-Allied Governments and upon Germany. What he was questioned about to-day was an agreement come to between three, and only three, of the Allied Governments, to which Germany was not a party, and to which the other ex-Allied Governments were not parties. It was a declaration of interpretation by three ex-Allied Governments, and all those Governments were acting in that spirit at this moment.—Australian Press Association.