GENOA CONFERENCE.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 12 May 1922, Page 5

GENOA CONFERENCE.

GERMAJ i.. IN TER VEN IN G. INFLUENCES AT GENOA. Press Assn.—By Tel. —Copyright. LONDON, May 9. The “Times’' -pecial correspondent at Genoa, refer; ..»g to German hopes for the re-estfefehment of the Bismarckian system German mastery of Europe, state- feat since the FrancoRussian, Angle-French and Anglo-Rus-sian ententes haj definitely broken the system, the sup; erne object of the Germans was to drive a wedge between France and England. Until last week the efforts see.ri-ed doomed to failure, but now the tie; mans and Bolshevik;-, together contin them, and there is a strong prob. :ity that they will succeed, unless British public opinion is speedily mimtested in unmistakable fashion. The Bolshevil have a treaty which is tantamount ‘ ■ in alliance with Germany. If thanks ’■•_> German good offices, the Bolsheviks return an acceptable reply to the concerted document, a strong link will, be forged between Britain, Germany and the Bolsheviks. France and Belgium would then be confronted with the alternative of standing out or facing isolation in the uncertain company of the United States, pending a probable agreement between France and Germany, who would then turn their backs upon England. -Having secured de jure recognition from Britain. Italy and some others the Bolsheviks would be able to conclude legs-Uv valid industrial and petroleum agreements. DELAj’ PROBABLE. FRENCH DELEGATES MAY LEAVE

GENOA, May 10. It « reported that Signor Schanzer has induced the Belgians to take a more conciliatory attitude. Reports from Paris suggest that French delegates may withdraw. Even in sue an eventuality Mr Lloyd George is determined to continue the Conference’s work. Delay in receiving instructions from Moscow on various points may prevent the presentation of the Russian reply to the memorandum till to-morrow. VATICAN MEMO. REFERRED TO SUB-COMM LSSION. The Vatican memorandum in regard to religious toleration in Russia was discussed. M. Barthou moved its reference to a sub-commission. Mr Lloyd George said that there was no stronger supporter of religious freedom than himself. The subject had been the matter of conflict everywhere, and he suggested an inquiry to ascertain the real position in Russia. M. Jasper pressed the Holy See’s request. Mr Lloyd George replied that he did not see what action could be taken without infringing Russia’s rights. He agreed that the Note should be referrea to a suc-commission. The Pope had been a good friend to the Conference and he was quite certain that he would not press the matter to a point which might endanger the peace of Eastern Europe LL&YO GEORGE’S JAW SET. FRENCH “HORRIBLE THREATS.” LONDON, May 10. The Daily Chronicle’s” Genoa correspondent writes: Enough is known of the contents of the Russian reply to justify the belief that it will be acceptable as a basis of discussion, but the French are emitting most horrible threats if the answer is not plain “Yes.” If the .incredible happens and French go, the Conference will continue without them, -and after agreement with Russia is reached the Eastern frontiers will be settled, then a pact discussed.

Mr Lloyd George’s jaw is set. He is determined to complete, correct and improve the work imperfectly done at Paris. In this he has the support of the leaders of the greater part of Europe.

BACKWARD STEP. GENOA, May 11. The preamble of the Russian reply, as communicated to Signor Schanzer, emphasises the request for recognition of guarantees against outside intervention in loans. The reply contends that the Allies have not touched these vital questions. Instead they press for the payment of debts.

The Russians agree to negotiate regarding the memorandum, pointing out that the document does not offer an equitable solution of the Russian pro-

blem, but it is even a step backwards from the memorandum of the London experts and deviates from the Cannes resolutions. The obstinate resistance of the first sub-commission to any proposal, except the recognition of debts, was due to reactionary interests which seek in the defeat of Soviet Russia, a triumph of capitalistic individualism. The Russians reassert that they do not desire to wreck the conference.

IMPORTANT QUESTION* DISCUSSED. GENOA, May 10. The convening Powers met this morning and disposed of a number of important questions, notably typhus and children of Eastern Europe. Mr Lloyd George drew attention to the extreme importance of the matter and it was decided to deal with it at a plenary session of the Conference. EASTERN GALICIA Mr Lloyd George proposed to discuss the Eastern Galician frontier at ths sub-commission and endeavour to settle it in accordance with the existing treaties; also the questions of Vilna. M. Barthou pointed out that those matters were covered by* existing treaties and should be referred to existing machinery. He did not think they came within the Genoa agenda. Mr Lloyd George insisted that they were urged from the view point of European peace, and came within the scope of the Cannes resolutions. He was determined to raise them at a subcommission, and if necessary to carry them before the full conference. M. Barthou reserved the right to oppose reference to the plenary session, but was prepared to discuss it as a subcommission. The Angora Government claimed the right to attend the Genoa Conference. M. Barthou said that the Constantinople Government, which was a European Power, was not P rese “ ■ therefore they could not consider the request of the Angora Government.

STATEMENT BY TCHITCHERIN.

Paris, May 11

M. Tchitcherin, interviewed regarding the Russian reply, said, “We have now gone, as far as possible m the direction of concessions. The expression of the opinion which came from Russia was too imperative for us to go beyond a certain limit. An unmistakeable opinion has been constantly expressed by our workers on the question of nationalisation, without compensation.” The publication of the London mem orandum has provoked considerable feeling in Russia, and the Government has been inundated with resolutions from local Soviets workers’ assemblies and army regiments. The army was a strong political force, and it must not be forgotten that the period of intervention had the result of attaching the peasants and workers closer to the present regime, which had become for them a symbol of complete national independence.

RUSSIAN REPLY DELAYED.

London, May 11. The Australian Press Association’s Genoa correspondent states that the Russian reply has been further delayed until the afternoon, it is believed as the outcome of M. Tchiteherin’s interview with Herr Schanzer, when hi- submitted the reply. Herr Schanzer declared that the reply was unlikely to be acceptable and it is understood that M. Tchiteherin is further considering it. The Italian papers publish what appears like a preamble, wherein the Russians point out that the main point, the reconstruction of a new Russia, has been subordinated to dealing with past matters, wherein a certain group of foreign nations have not any interest. The Allies have made such a wide incursion into old matters that they have produced lively controversies among themselves.

Many incidents have occurred in the last few days, notably the oil question, which showed that purely material interests were interlaced with purely political considerations.