Indian Conference Situation Delicate.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19258, 20 December 1930, Page 8

Indian Conference Situation Delicate.

A Weekly Review

By Bystander. 'J'HERE ARE some public men who possess an unfortunate capacity for creating a bad impression upon people of all shades of political conviction at once. The most striking example

of this generalisation in Britain to-day is Mr Winston Churchill. No one doubts his ability or, for that matter, his patriotism and public spirit. But nobody has much confidence in the fixity of his intentions, and certainly no one can trust his judgment in political affairs. During the past week he has given his friends cause to lament, and his . . # enemies an excuse for reviling, by a wholly gratuitous and most offensive speech about Indian affairs. The Round Table Conference is in session, the situation is delicate in the extreme, and the utmost care has been taken by the Government and by the various party leaders to avoid any expression of opinion that might seem to prejudice the case or arouse suspicion or resentment among the Nationalists. And this is the precise juncture that Mr Chprchill -chooses for an oration in the worst style 6f the typical AngloIndian of two or three generations ago. Mr MacDonald is perfectly justified in condemning this extraordinary combination of bad taste, bad feeling and bad judgment. But the Labour leaders do not stand alone in their denunciation of Mr Churchill’s petulant folly. The Conservatives have joined heartily in the chorus of reprobation, and the “ Times ” has declared with unusual warmth and acrimony that “ Mr Churchill is no more a representative of the Conservative Party than the assassins at Calcutta are representatives of the Indians who are assembled at the Round Table Conference.” Let us hope that the Nationalists will be prepared to “ let it go at that.” A Gloomy Atmosphere. Last week I discussed the trouble that has arisen recently with the Poles on Germany’s eastern frontier. This week I have come across a significant and ominous comment on the situation—“ the Polish corridor remains Europe’s danger spot.” The danger does not lie simply in the antagonism of the Poles toward the Germans, against whom they have an account of very long standing, nor even in the resentment of the Germans at their exclusion from territory which they—quite inaccurately and unjustifiably—claim as part of their national home. If Poland and Germany come to blows—and even a trivial outbreak of violence might serve as an excuse—France, on the one side, and Russia, on the other, would almost certainly be involved. Russia would assuredly seize the opportunity to attack Poland, as she did eight years ago, and France would certainly come to Poland’s aid. But France is linked up with the Little Entente —that is, she has virtually an alliance with Poland, Rumania and Yugoslavia and the Czechoslovak republic as well. •On the other hand/ Italy has definitely ranged herself against the Yugoslavs in the Balkans, for the sake of acquiring territory there; and, to strengthen her hands in that quarter, she has entered into close and friendly relations with Bulgaria, whose ruler, King Boris, has just married Princess Giovanna of Italy. Here we have the germ of an Italian-Bulgarian-Russian-German alliance against France and the four small Powers created or enlarged by the Treaty of Versailles. I do not suggest that there is any immediate danger of a European war. But the course of events is tending to divide Europe again into two armed camps, with Germany and her associates on the one side and France and her allies on the other; and with every desire to be optimistic about world peace, I must admit that the outlook leaves a great deal to be desired. The Russian Factor. Of course, the probability of trouble in Europe is immensely enhanced just now by the bellicose and provocative attitude of Russia. The recent “ treason trial ” at Moscow has supplied the world* with a striking object-lesson in the higher strategy of Bolshevism. Nobody can seriously pretend that the trial was anything but an elaborate farce, staged by Stalin and his colleagues to divert the attention of the Russian people from their own grievances, to feed the flames of Bolshevik hatred against Britain and France, and to prepare the way for -war when the exigencies of the domestic situation —the “ home front ” make war inevitable. . Taking all this into account, the Parisian “ Temps ” very naturally raises the question why civilised nations should take the trouble to maintain diplomatic relations with a State which so deliberately and constantly infringes the rights of others, and so systematically repudiates all the recognised responsibilities and amenities of international intercourse. As the “ Temps ” justly observes, “ experience has shown the Powers that relations with Russia only facilitate Bolshevik propaganda.” And, opportunely enough, from centres so far removed from each other sas Hongkong, Sydney and New York, cable messages have arrived during the past week giving alarming details of “ Red ” riots and piling up further accumulations of evidence, testifying to the activity of Bolshevik propagandists and their determination to carry the “ class war ” relentlessly through the length and breadth of the world. It is difficult to see what other countries gain by trying to treat Russia as a friend, and affecting to take seriously her protestations of sincerity and pacifism, while all the facts are against them. The Conference Aftermath. Most people regard General Smuts as an enthusiastic Imperialist, and rightly so. No man in South Africa has ever stood out more boldly against the “separatists,” or shown more genuine devotion to the Empire since the Boers got their freedom. It is all the more ominous that General Smuts has returned from the Imperial Conference, not only disillusioned, but embittered. The other day he told a Cape' Town audience that what might have been the most brilliantly successful of all our Imperial Conferences had ended in disappointment, and he even went so far as to warn the Government “ not to tamper again with British preference.” No doubt most of the colonial delegates share Smuts’s feelings, though they may hesitate to express themselves with the same frankness and courage. There is some slight consolation to be found in looking to next year’s conference at Ottawa, which is to be devoted largely to the discussion of economic problems “ left over,’’ as Mr J. H. Thomas ambiguously puts it, from the London Conference. Meantime, it may be pointed out, the reactions produced by contact between the Dominion representatives and the Imperial authorities in London have not been wholly unfavourable or unsatisfactory. For General Hertzog has gone back to South Africa converted to Imperialism. At all events, his very first public action when he got back was to renounce Republicanism. He told the Pretoria League of Nationalist Women that “ Republicanism has led to nothing but bitterness in our national life,” and that he intends to do everything in* his power to prevent the Nationalists “ from becoming a Republican party.” The Nationalists are described as paralysed and overwhelmed by this announcement. But if the Imperial Conference has really produced this effect upon General Hertzog it was cer. tainly worth while.