FROM OCTOBER 23 TO NOVEMBER 23
ALLIED POWERS AND GERMANY
French Limitations Block Expert Inquiry.—Throughout the latter part of October diplomatic discussions continued between the Allied Powers and the United States government regarding American participation in a proposed inquiry by a commission of international experts into German financial resources and ability to pay reparations. The United States government finally refused to take part on the ground that the limitations insisted upon by the French government would make the investigation futile, and that an investigation in which France did not take part would be equally valueless.
On October 13 the British government sent an inquiry to the American Department of State as to whether the proposal for such an inquiry, originally made by Secretary Hughes, still held good. Upon an affirmative reply, the British government secured from France, Italy, and Belgium assent “in principle” to the proposal and proceeded to attempt the formulation of a joint invitation. Subsequent exchanges between Great Britain, France, and the United States developed the fact that France insisted upon sharply limiting the scope of the proposed investigation. First, France did not desire that the commission should consider the legitimacy of the occupation of the Ruhr. Second, France declined to have the commission consider the total amount of reparations unless in connection with inter-allied debts. Finally France declared against any examination to extend beyond the year 1930. In view of these limitations, the United States declined to interest itself further in the plan.
In its note to Great Britain regarding the plan, the United States government had stipulated (1) that there should be no aim to relieve Germany of her due responsibilities; (2) that the fixing of reparations should not be related to inter-allied debts; (3) that the American representative should act merely as a private citizen; (4) that there should be no inquiry unless all the Allied powers consented to participate.
Return of Former Crown Prince.—The former Crown Prince Frederick William left Wieringen in Holland early on November 10 and crossed the frontier into Germany on the morning of that day. After spending the night at the home of General von Hindenburg, he continued his journey to his estates at Oels in Upper Silesia. Frederick William had previously secured the consent of the German government for his return, and it was' generally known that he was making plans for departure. At the instance of Great Britain, the Allied Powers made representations to the Dutch government against his leaving Holland, but when the Allied envoys visited the Dutch Foreign Office Frederick had just previously crossed the frontier.
In reply to a protest from the Council of Ambassadors, the German government declared it could see no justification in law or right for opposing the return of a German subject. It gave further assurance that the former Crown Prince had renounced all political claims and pledged himself not to take part in public affairs. In the German press the suggestion was made that Chancellor Stresemann had sanctioned the return as a means of splitting Monarchist sentiment in Germany between the Hohenzollerns in the North and Prince Rupprecht of the House of Wittelsbach in Bavaria.
Rumored Return of Ex-Kaiser.—At the time of the return of the Crown Prince there was evidence that the ex-Kaiser had also made plans to leave Holland. The ex-Kaiser, however, denied such intentions, and the German government subsequently gave assurances to the Council of Ambassadors that no permission had been granted or would be granted. Dutch legal authorities were divided as to the responsibilities of Holland in the circumstances. It was recalled that in March, 1920, when Holland had refused to surrender the former Emperor, she was warned of her responsibilities, and that on March 26, 1920, she had declared her purpose “to take all necessary measures to limit the freedom of the ex-Kaiser to the required restrictions.”
Allies Patch up Differences.—In view of the return of the former Crown Prince to Germany, the altered situation in the Ruhr, and the refusal of Germany to permit the Interallied Military Commission to renew its supervision of German military measures, the Allied powers in November again felt the necessity of making an effort for concerted action.
On November 6 the Council of Ambassadors sent a note to Berlin demanding that the Interallied Military Commission, which had ceased supervision since the occupation of the Ruhr, be allowed to resume activity at once, with the object of ascertaining whether or not the armed forces in Germany exceeded 100,000. To this demand, Germany replied that in the disturbed internal situation she could not guarantee protection for the commission.
In the subsequent discussion sharp divergence developed between France and the other Allied powers, especially Great Britain. France called for a definite threat of punitive measures, including seizure of further territory and possible occupation of a sea port (Hamburg). At the same time Premier Poincare declared on November 18 that France intended to hold the Ruhr not only until the fulfilment of reparation terms but until the fulfilment of all other terms of the treaty. Italy, as indicated definitely by a speech of Mussolini on November 16, supported Great Britain in opposition to direct threats or further occupation of German territory.
Contents of Allied Notes.—Two notes were later sent to Germany by the Conference of Ambassadors. The first demanded the immediate resumption of operations by the Allied Military Control Commission, with full freedom on the part of the Commission to determine what operations were feasible and necessary. “Should these operations meet with obstruction from the German authorities or German nationals, the Allied governments intend to take measures which may seem to them proper to secure execution of the treaty.”
The second note took cognizance of the return of the former Crown Prince, of the latter’s renunciation of his rights to the Crown of Prussia and the Imperial Crown, of the German Government’s acceptance of the validity of this renunciation and its consent' to the return in spite of the danger therein threatened, and also of its engagement not to authorize the former Emperor’s return. The note held Germany responsible for the consequences that might result from allowing the former Prince to remain in Germany.
GERMANY’S INTERNAL PROBLEMS
Nationalist Coup Fails in Bavaria.—Bavarian reactionary and monarchist sentiment, which had found expression in the Bavarian Fascisti movement headed by Adolph Hitler, culminated in an attempted seizure of power in Munich on November 8. At a political meeting in the Bur- bra u Keller, addressed by the Bavarian official dictator Dr. von Kahr, Hitler and his followers entered the hall, took control, and announced the overthrow of the Bavarian Government and the establishment of a new rule with himself in political control and General Ludendorff as military leader. Pledges of support were forced from von Kahr and for a time the “putsch” appeared a success.
On the following day, however, Dr. von Kahr renounced his pledges, declared Hitler and Ludendorff traitors, and, with a strong body of loyal Reichswehr troops under General von Lossow, met and dispersed a force of some 5,000 nationalists assembled in the Odeonplatz, with casualties of eighteen killed and twenty wounded. Ludendorff was arrested and subsequently released on parole. Hitler escaped but was later captured.
The failure of the attempt left Dr. Kahr still in control as dictator, with no meeting of the Bavarian Diet probable until next spring. In the meantime Bavaria will probably follow its present independent policy toward the Federal government, without active opposition.
There are deeper political results, however, of the amateurish and abortive putsch in Munich. It clears the air and definitely eliminates Hitler and his national Socialist followers as well as Ludendorff. At the same time this coup strengthens the real reactionaries of Bavaria, which is overwhelmingly Catholic and Monarchists and loyal to Crown Prince Rupprecht, who shrewdly has kept himself in the background. By the bulk of Bavarians Ludendorff and Hitler were considered interlopers, outsiders and non-Bavarians, which they were. Now that Hitler and Ludendorff are removed, the real show has a chance of starting on clean lines.—New York Times, 10 November, 1923.
Communist Rule Ended in Saxony.—In Saxony at the close of October the Federal Government demonstrated its supremacy by accomplishing the overthrow of the Communist Saxon Cabinet, which had defied the authority of the Reich. General Muller, as military representative of the Reich, took possession of public buildings in Dresden and elsewhere, arrested the Cabinet on October 29, and subsequently brought about the establishment of a new Socialist Ministry.
SEPARATIST MOVEMENT IN THE RHINELAND
Attitude of Allied Powers.—During the month following the proclamation of a Rhineland Republic at Aix-la-Chapelle on October 20, the outcome of the movement appeared problematical. Coblenz, Wiesbaden, Bingen, Crefeld, Duren, Duisberg and many other towns and villages in the Rhineland and the Bavarian Palatinate were occupied by the Separatists, but their success appeared largely conditioned by the inability of their opponents to organize armed opposition in view of Allied restrictions. The peasantry were in general hostile and took forcible measures to prevent requisitioning of supplies.
In notes sent to France and Belgium on October 31 Great Britain declared opposition to the dismemberment of Germany and her view that the creation of a separate state in the Rhineland was contrary to the Treaty of Versailles. No activities were permitted in the British zone of occupation. The Belgian authorities forced the Separatists to evacuate Aix, Crefeld, and other towns in the Belgian zone. Both France and Belgium, however, assumed a neutral attitude, withholding recognition, but taking the ground that questions of internal political control should be left to the people concerned.
Berlin Plans Autonomy for Rhineland.—With the abandonment of passive resistance and the decision to cease payment of funds to unemployed in the Ruhr and Rhineland after November 25, the Berlin government cast about for a formula by which the occupied territories could be thrown on their own resources and still held in allegiance to the Reich. Representatives from the Rhineland met government officials at Berlin in an effort to reach such a solution, but up to November 22 without publicly announced results.
Chancellor Sfresemann and other champions of the proposed plan to jettison the Ruhr and the Rhineland, so long as they are under military occupation, believe that passing “economic autonomy” is the sole solution to the problem now confronting the Government along the Rhine.
0 |
?» |
A |
•> |
There is an apparent desire to pass along the buck to France and Belgium, leaving the German populace to make its peace with the occupying powers for an indefinite period and permitting the Central Government to wash its hands of the legacy bequeathed it by nine months of passive resistance.
If this solution is adopted it will presage a complete reversal of procedure with reference to reparations; and it is presumed the creditor powers would have to enter into separate agreements with the industrialists regarding deliveries, while the question of gold payment would be protested by Germany on the ground that she was deprived of uninterrupted disposition of her complete economic organization or a demand would be made for a postponement of cash payments until the country’s financial situation had sufficiently recuperated to warrant them.
The impending decisions with respect to the Ruhr and the Rhineland, therefore, have a weighty bearing on Germany’s foreign relations, as' well as on the further trend of internal events.—New York Times, 13 November, 1923.
Economic Agreements.—Negotiations were resumed on November 20 between Ruhr coal and steel magnates and the Allied Technical Commission in an effort to reach terms for a general renewal of industrial operations. An agreement with Ruhr chemical and dye industries was reached on November 18, providing for a renewal of deliveries in kind to the Reparations Commission. An agreement was also reached with the German Federal Government providing for return of rolling stock to the occupied territory and a future modus vivendi between the railroads inside and outside the occupied zones.
GREAT BRITAIN
British Elections Set for December.—Parliament was dissolved on November 16 and parliamentary elections called on the issue primarily of the Government’s foreign policy and its announced policy of a protective tariff, with preferences to imports from British Dominions. In his first election address on November 17 Premier Baldwin declared the following four objects of his proposed tariff on manufactured articles:
First: Raising revenue by methods less unfair to home production.
Secondly: Assistance to industries exposed to unfair foreign competition.
Thirdly: Utilization of the new duties to negotiate reductions in foreign tariffs.
Fourth: The grant of substantial preferences on the whole range of duties to British-produced articles.
The leaders of the two wings' of the Liberal party, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George, effected a reconciliation and united the party for the election. The Liberal platform condemned the Government foreign policy both in the Ruhr and in the Near East as feeble and ineffective. It opposed the tariff on the ground that it would provide no remedy for unemployment and would hinder rather than encourage foreign trade. Both Liberal and Conservative Parties opposed the Labor proposal of a levy on capital as an emergency measure.
Agreement on Liquor Search at Sea.—The question of a treaty with the United States permitting search of British vessels for liquor beyond the three-mile limit was presented to the Imperial Conference of Premiers in October and approved by that body. It was reported that the terms of such a treaty had already been framed and that no serious obstacle prevented its early acceptance by both governments.
At the request of the British the rights of the American authorities to detain British vessels suspected of liquor running will not be confined strictly to twelve miles from shore or any other arbitrary limit, but will probably embrace the distance covered by the broad term: “An hour’s sailing distance from the American shore,” which is reckoned roughly at from ten to fifteen miles. Thus a “twelve-mile limit” will not be mentioned in the treaty, and the Foreign Office cannot be charged with surrendering its traditional principle regarding the limitation of territorial waters.
In this connection the British attach much importance to America’s formal recognition of the three-mile limit in questions of general maritime rights as being likely to be invaluable to them. Only recently Soviet Russia agitated for the establishment of a twelve-mile limit for all maritime purposes, but with the American Government supporting the British stand it is expected that the principle will remain as established in international law.—New York Times, 30 October, 1923.
New American Ambassador.—Following the resignation of Colonel Harvey as American Ambassador to Great Britain, President Coolidge announced the appointment of former Senator Frank B. Kellogg of Minnesota to the vacant post. Mr. Kellogg sailed for England in November.
NEAR EAST
Turkish Republic Established.—Constantinople, October 29. (Associated Press.)—The National Assembly at Angora has voted the establishment of the Turkish republic. Mustapha Kemal Pasha has been unanimously elected President.
The Turkish constitution was so amended within the last few months that the proclamation of a republic was merely a matter of form. It provided that Turkey should be proclaimed a republic, with a President elected for a period of four or five years.
The title of president of the Grand National Assembly has been held by Mustapha Kemal, who also holds the post of commander-in-chief of the army.
FAR EAST
West Coast Alien Laws Upheld.—Washington, November 12—Laws of California and Washington, which prohibit Japanese and other aliens from owning land in those states, were upheld by the Supreme Court today in opinions handed down by Associate Justice Butler. In the Washington opinion which constituted the principle, Justice Butler denied that the law of that state was in conflict either with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution or with the treaty with Japan.
He held that a state had the authority to prevent ownership of land by aliens who had not declared their intention to become good citizens of the United States or who were prevented from assuming citizenship.—New York Times, 13 November, 1923.
International Control of Chinese Railways.—Although the Peking dispatches reporting the powers’ demands upon China following the Lincheng incident have given prominence to those for the indemnification of the banditry victims and the punishment of the delinquent Chinese officials, these are of minor importance. The crux of the demands is the proposal to place all the Government railways of China under foreign control, and that is what China is fighting, and will continue to fight, tooth and nail.
As to the amount of damages and the reprimanding of the guilty officials, there will be no difficulty in arriving at an agreement, but the internationalization of the railways China will accept only when all means of resistance are exhausted.
Of all modern economic institutions adopted by China the railways are perhaps the most important. Her Government-owned railways aggregate some 4,000 miles, of which the important main lines are these seven: Peking-Mukden, 525 miles; Peking-Hankow, 755; Tientsin-Shanghai, 822; Peking-Suiyan, 317; Shanghai-Ningpo, 118; Lung-Hai, 365, and Shantung, 250.
To the Chinese, international control of so important a part of their national existence is the beginning of the ultimate obliteration of their independence and freedom. The maritime customs, by far the most important source of China’s revenue, have long since passed into foreign, especially British, control. The salt gabelle, another great source of revenue, has likewise been placed in British hands.
The deprivation of the Chinese of their railways will, they fear, prove a definite movement toward international control of nothing less than China itself.
The plan for the internationalization of the Chinese railways was proposed by Great Britain, and has been, after some hesitation, it is said, accepted by the United States.
Meanwhile the prevailing sentiment among the Chinese is growing more and more anti-foreign, and particularly anti-British. They are convinced that the day is passed, thanks to the World War and the Wilsonian doctrine of self-determination, when the great powers could treat China as they pleased, when the murder of a foreign missionary or merchant would bring upon them a retribution such as would strike terror into their souls.
They know that the powers, in deference to the high-sounding ideals they had themselves heralded, dare not handle them as roughly as they were wont to do in the earlier days.
To all appearances the new proposal for the international control of the Chinese railways is not going to have smooth sailing, although it may eventually be adopted with such modifications as China may manage to wrest, if the powers act vigorously and in unison.—‘Baltimore Sun, 11 November, 1923.
LATIN AMERICA
Tacna-Arica Dispute Submitted to President Coolidge.—Washington, November 13.—Chile and Peru, through presentation of their arguments in the Tacna-Arica case today to the President of the United States, selected by them as arbitrator in this thirty-year controversy, brought the ancient dispute one step nearer final solution.
There remains the filing by Chile and Peru of their counter-replies, for which they will be allowed three months, and then Coolidge, as arbitrator, will determine the question, and his decision will be final, whether a plebiscite shall be held in the Provinces of Tacna and Arica to fix their permanent sovereignty or whether the matter shall be decided in some other manner.
Chile argues in favor of a plebiscite to decide whether Tacna and Arica shall be hers or be returned to Peru, while Peru opposes a plebiscite, holding that conditions have so changed since 1894, the date when the plebiscite should have been held, that it would be impractical and unfair to hold it “in the present circumstances.”
Chile holds that a plebiscite not only would fufill the provisions of the Treaty of Ancon, which ended the War of 1879-83, but also would conform to the doctrine of the “consent of the governed,” which is in harmony, the brief states, with the democratic principles controlling popular government today.
Peru, on the other hand, asserts that “the only just plebiscite, preserving the legal and moral interests of both Chile and Peru under the Treaty of Ancon, would be one which would reflect the conditions as to population prevailing in 1894.
The Peruvian brief declares that the territory obtained by Chile at the end of the war of the Pacific, not including Tacna and Arica, constituted “the greatest war indemnity the world has ever known,” and refers to this fact to prove that even these enormous advantages were an insufficient inducement to cause Chile to comply with the terms of the peace treaty, which she herself had imposed by the sword.
Peru asserts that the population of the Provinces of Tacna and Arica, even on the admission of Chilean authorities, down to the year 1910 at least, was overwhelmingly Peruvian, and that a plebiscite, if it had been held in 1894 or about that time, would Have been decisively in favor of Peru.—New York Times, 14 November, 1923.