STORMY MEETING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 242, 13 October 1936, Page 7

STORMY MEETING

: NEUTRALITY PACT | SOVIET ACCUSATIONS ITALIAN AND GERMAN PROTESTS i MORE PRECISE EVIDENCE WANTED I By Tclcsra.ffi —Pre.-? Association —Copyright? LONDON, Oct. IL Brisk Italian and German protests, and the temporary withdrawal o. the Portuguese representative marked the meeting of the International Committee for the application of the Agreement for Non-intervention in Spain, which rose after a seven hours debate. Signor Grandi, Italian Ambassador in London, and Frince von Bismarck, counsellor to the German Ambassador, criticised the British Government for bringing forward the Spanish allegations that their countries had assisted the insurgents.

i Senor Calhciros (Portugal) left the committee after protesting that Portugal regarded the Soviet's accusations against her as a hostile act. Later, after consulting his Government, he returned. Lord Plymouth, the acting chairman, told the delegates that Britain assumed the responsibility of bringing the allegations of intervention before the committee because of the wide publicity given to them and the interest and anxiety caused in the minds of the British public. Request to Moscow. i After a long discussion the three : accused countries agreed to refer the complaints to their Governments and obtain explanations and comments. ' The committee, following the storm j raised by Senor Calheiros, decided to ; request Moscow to produce more prej cise evidence in support of the alj legations. Signor Grandi declared that Italy I had not violated the agreement. If war material had been sent to Spain j it must have been sent before the i agreement came into operation. The charges against Italy were baseless i and fantastic. Italian Counter-charge. | Signor Grandi later proceeded to ' counter-charge the Soviet with violat- | ing the agreement, citing three Russian ships which, he asserted, carried 1 aeroplanes and rifles to the Spanish I Government forces. M. Samuel Cahan, counsellor to the i Russian Embassy, retorted that the I ships had not carried a single ounce 1 of munitions, but food. | Signor Grandi added that the Soviet ! must not seek to throw responsibility on to others. If it annulled the agreement by its unilateral action it alone I would have to bear full responsibility for the consequences. Searching Examination. An official communique says: “There was general agreement that it was imperative, in the general interest, that the alleged violations should be subjected to the most searching examination with the utmost possible speed. Signor Grandi energetically I repudiated the allegations against Italy, declaring that they were entirely fantastic and devoid of foundation.” The communique adds: “SignaGrandi also very strongly protested against the Soviet’s methods and informed the committee that the Italian Government declined to accept responsibility for any result which might follow if the agreement were annulled. The German and Portuguese representatives made similar re- | servations.” COMMUNIQUE ISSUED NON-INTERVENTION SOVIET ALLEGATIONS [ British Oficial Wirelew. 1 RUGBY, Oct. 10. i The International Committee for the , application of the agreement regarding non-intervention in Spain has issued a communique stating that Lord Plymouth informed the meeting that the United Kingdom Government considered the question of the incidents alleged would, if substantiated, constitute breaches of the agreement, and on October 6 they accordingly communicated the documents to the committee for their consideration. The committee had a letter before it dated October 6, alleging violation of the agreement by the Portuguese Government, presented by the representative of the U.S.S.R., and putting forward a proposal for investigation of matters on the Por-

tugucse frontier. In accordance with the rules of procedure, the chairman will at once forward the complaint to the Portuguese representative, and the committee decided, pending receipt of a reply, that it would be premature to discuss the proposal for the appointment of a committee of investigation. The committee also had before it a letter dated October 7 from the representative of the U.S.S.R.. stating that his Government feared lest the situation created by repeated violations of the agreement might render the agreement virtually non-existent and that they could in no case agree to throw’ the agreement into a screen shielding military aid to the rebels by some of the participants. They were compelled, therefore, to declare that if violation of the agreement were not immediately ended the Soviet Government would consider itself free from the obligations arising out of the agreement. The German representative took the view' that the communication by the U.S.S.R. representative was outside the competence of the committee, as it did not follow the rules of procedure laid down, and was to be regarded as a purely political move. In view of the fact that no concrete proposals were before the committee on this occasion, no action could be taken on the statement made by the representative of the U.S.S.R.