THE GENEVA CONFERENCE

Waikato Times, Volume 93, Issue 14538, 9 December 1920, Page 5

THE GENEVA CONFERENCE

STEONG OBJECTION VOICED TO TECHNICAL ORGANISATIONS. FINANCE, HEALTH AND TRANSIT. (Australian and N.Z. Cable Assn.)','" Received December 9, 9‘ a.m. I*' 1 GENEVA, December 8. -’ The Assembly received the report on the technical , organisations of the League. The report recommended the creation of three < technical organisation, the first dealing with economic; and financial matters, which will carry cn the work of the Brussels Conference; the second with the communications and transit; and the third with international health. Each body is to have a standing committee at Geneva. The report also recommends the immediate summoning of a conference at Barcelona to which the United States shall be invited. The draft scheme provides for freedom of international transit. The report points out that it will be the, duty of the health organisation to devise a more rapid interchange of information regarding the treatment of epidemics, to deal with sickness and injury to workers arising from employment in co-operation. The labour organisation and health committee are to meet in Paris annually. Hon. N. W. Rowell (Canada) took exception to the principles underlying these organisations which sought to commit States to matters upon which they had never been consulted. The people of Canada - were not prepared to take over conditions which a European committee sought to impose, because Europeans did not understand their viewpoint. Canada, much as she loved and respected Britain did not allow her tu settle Canadian affairs; therefore; how much less should we hand over questions contained in this report to European States? Who was it but a European statesman who had drenched the world with blood. Fifty thousand lives was the cost Canada had paid i’ofEuropoan sltaesmanship. Mr Rowell said, “Let Europe deal with her own transit and health problems. Let us see within a year what they could do with them.”

M. Hanotaux (France) hotly combats led Mr Rowell’s remarks, declaring that . Europe had fought for the rest of the world and humanity. Objections like... Mr Rowell’s should have been made at the time of the signing of the covenant. - . Mr Millen (Australia) strongly sym-. pnthised with Mr Rowell’s idea. These organisations would be utterly useless' unless created by international conventions. M. Hanotaux was strong in blaming the covenant. There was nothing wrong with the covenant, but it was the interpretation that was now!. sought to be placed upon it that was wrong. He objected to any attempt force the Commission’s report upon Assembly. The latter must have' % 0 j right of expressing even adverse criticism upon it when it was shown that we are asked to do something in direct. , conflict with the covenant. He thoughtU ey might create these organisations, but would not And that a single States, would contribute to their upkeep Ws Article XXIII. provided. -voi It was pointed out that Article VI. provided that the expenses of tho ■ secretariat should be borne by the League. 1 . ■ Mr Millen warned the Assembly that members only were committed to the expenses of the secretariat! ; c lt would Le an unfortunate thing for the League if members declined to contribute to the upkeep of organisations about which ihey were not consulted. There might be members of the' Assembly who were authorised to commit their countries to cosfof such organisations, but he could not do so. >■ Lord Robert Cecil agreed with much of Mr Rowell’s opposition. He thought the organisations should be experimental for a year until they could see how they worked. He supported Mr Rowell in his contention that no vote should at present be taken on the principle until the matter had been more fully considered. There should also be a conference between those who held views like Mr Rowell and others who thought differently. Mr Rowell subsequently withdrew his remarks that might he considered to re fleet on the statesmen of European countries. He had merely wished la illustrate the different viewpoints and what threatened to he a warm debate cooled down. No vote was taken, the matter being adjourned, pending a conference be- ’ tween M. Hanotaux rapporteur of the committee, Messrs Millen and others.