NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FROM FEBRUARY 23 TO MARCH 23
Prepared by Allan Westcott, Professor, U.S. Naval Academy
FRANCE IN THE RUHR
Food riots, sabotage, attacks upon French officials, and French measures of prevention and reprisal continued in the Ruhr during March. In spite of constant rumors of direct negotiations between France and Germany or mediation by other powers, no steps of this nature were made public. Events up to March 23 may be summarized:
- On February 25 French troops occupied the intervals separating the previously occupied zones around the bridgeheads of Mayence, Coblenz, and Cologne. This extension of the occupied zones was necessary to complete the customs line and export licensing system adopted by the French authorities.
- On February 28 the ban was lifted on coal exports from the Ruhr to Germany, subject to payment to the French of the forty per cent tax which Germany was supposed to have collected prior to the occupation.
- In the Reichstag on March 6 Premier Cuno denounced French action in the Ruhr and declared that no approaches for settlement could be made at that time, although Germany, "when the path was open would be ready for frank discussion as an equal government." This attitude was approved by the Reichstag and the press, but it was reported that Ruhr industrial magnates were pressing the government to open negotiations.
- On March 10 two French officials were murdered in the town of Buer, and during rioting after the arrest of German suspects eight Germans were killed and thirteen wounded.
- At the Brussels Conference between the French and Belgian premiers on March 12 it was decided that there should be no discussion or negotiations with Germany or terms for withdrawal from the Ruhr, until full execution by Germany of reparations obligations. Accord was reached regarding measures to be taken in the Ruhr, although during the discussion the Belgian delegates were more inclined toward efforts to come to terms with Germany, providing not only for reparations but also for security, in view of Anglo-American refusal to ratify the guarantee treaties proposed at Versailles.
- On March 16 the German ambassador in Washington handed to Secretary Hughes a memorandum stating the German position regarding reparations and the Ruhr situation. This memorandum was placed on the confidential file, and, although consent was given by Berlin, its contents were not communicated to the French or other governments.
FRANCE
French View of Naval Treaties.—Paris, March 21 (Associated Press) —Deputy Charles Guernier, the official reporter on the Washington naval treaty, today made his long-deferred report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies. While his conclusions were favorable to ratification by France, his exceptions and reservations were such that a majority of the committee thought it necessary to give Aristide Briand and Rene Viviani, the former of whom headed the French delegation to the Washington Conference, a chance to be heard before the committee made its recommendations.
M. Guernier's exceptions and reservations were twofold. The first was that France would be bound for too long a period of time by the agreement, and the second that the allotment of tonnage was out of proportion to the country's needs regarding the safety of the seaboards of the mother country and of the colonies. M. Guernier argued that M. Briand and Viviani had failed to safeguard the best interests of France and Japan had treated her as "a poor country cousin."
RUSSIA
No American Recognition.—Washington, March 21.—Not until the Soviet Government of Russia sees fit to abandon policies that involve repudiation of international obligations, confiscation of private property and visitation upon other peoples of the world of "the disasters that have overwhelmed the Russian people" will the Government of the United States consider extending recognition to that Government, according to the policy outlined in a notable speech which Secretary Hughes made today to a delegation of women representing the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
The fundamental test, so far as recognition was involved, Secretary Hughes declared, was the evidence of a Government's ability and disposition to discharge international obligations, and in this connection, he pointed out, the United States had loaned the Kerensky regime about $187,000,000, yet in January, 1921, the present Government of Russia, the Secretary said, "unconditionally and without any exceptions'" annulled the foreign debt of Russia. He added:
"Not only would it be a mistaken policy to give encouragement to repudiation and confiscation, but it is also important to remember that there should be no encouragement to those efforts of the Soviet authorities to visit upon other peoples the disasters that have overwhelmed the Russian people."
The Secretary told the delegation he wished he could believe that such efforts had been abandoned. But not later than November, he told them, Zinovlev had solemnly declared that "the eternal in the Russian revolution is the fact that it is the beginning of the world revolution," while in October Trotzky, addressing the Russian Communist youths, assured them that the revolution was coming in Europe and in America, and that when it did come it would be "long protracted, cruel and sanguinary."
TURKEY AND NEAR EAST
Allies Discuss Turkish Reply.—After adverse action regarding the Lausanne Treaty by the Angora parliament, Turkey prepared a document proposing numerous eliminations, additions, and changes in the treaty. The proposed changes related chiefly to the treatment of foreigners in Turkey, and the distribution of the Turkish debt among provinces detached after the war. No changes were made in the articles relating to the Straits, and it was felt that the counter-proposals in general offered no dangerous obstacles to a final settlement.
During the week of March 18-24 French, British, and Italian representatives met in London to define the attitude of the Allies regarding the counter-proposals and settle time and place for further negotiations.
FAR EAST
China Proposes Abrogation, of "Twenty-One Demands" Treaty.—On March 10 the Chinese Government sent a note to Japan suggesting that a date be set for discussion of the return to China of Dalny and Port Arthur (the twenty-five-year lease of which expires in the near future) and the abrogation of the 1915 treaties between China and Japan embodying some of the famous "twenty-one demands." This move on the part of China was regarded as little more than a maneuver in the approaching Chinese presidential elections. Japan replied rejecting the Chinese proposal.
It was pointed out that "Group I" of the "twenty-one demands" was eliminated by the return of Shantung. Groups II, III, and IV provide for an extension of the Japanese lease in Port Arthur and economic privileges in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Settlement of Rhine Army Claims.—During March negotiations were conducted in Paris between Eliot Wadsworth, representing the U.S. Treasury Department, and Allied officials to settle the method of payment for the American Army of Occupation in Germany. As finally proposed and accepted in principle by the Washington Government, the settlement reached provided that the American claims be paid in twelve annual installments out of future cash deliveries by Germany.
The American claims amount to about $255,000,000, or 1,000,000,000 gold marks, which would call for twelve payments of about 80,000,000 gold marks. The United States rejected the proposal that the value of German ships seized by the United States during the war, amounting to perhaps $20,000,000, should be deducted from the total claims.
Proposal to Join World Court.—On February 24 President Harding sent the following message to the Senate, urging consent to adhesion by the United States to the protocol establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice:
To the Senate:
There has been established at The Hague a Permanent Court of International
Justice for the trial and decision of international causes by judicial methods, now effective through the ratification by the signatory powers of a special protocol. It is organized and functioning. The United States is a competent suitor in the court through provision of the statute creating it, but that relation is not sufficient for a nation long committed to the peaceful settlement of international controversies. Indeed, our nation had a conspicuous place in the advocacy of such an agency of peace and international adjustment, and our deliberate public opinion of today is overwhelmingly in favor of our full participation, and the attending obligations of maintenance and the furtherance of its prestige. It is for this reason that I am now asking for the consent of the Senate to our adhesion to the protocol.
With this request I am sending to the Senate a copy of the letter addressed to me by the Secretary of State in which he presents in detail the history of the establishment of the court, takes note of the objection to our adherence because of the court's organization under the auspices of the League of Nations, and its relation thereto, and indicates how, with certain reservations, we may fully adhere and participate and remain wholly free from any legal relation to the League or assumption of obligation under the covenant of the League.
I forbear repeating the presentation made by the Secretary of State, but there is one phase of the matter not covered in his letter with which I choose frankly to acquaint the Senate. For a long period, indeed ever since the international conference on the limitation of armament, the consideration of plans under which we might adhere to the protocol has been under way. We were unwilling to adhere unless we could participate in the selection of the judges; we could not hope to participate with an American accord if adherence involved any legal relation to the League. These conditions, there is good reason to believe, will be acceptable to the signatory powers, though nothing definitely can be done until the United States tenders adhesion with these reservations. Manifestly the Executive cannot make this tender until the Senate has spoken its approval. Therefore I must earnestly urge your favorable advice and consent. I would rejoice if some action could be taken even in the short period which remains of the present session.
It is not a new problem in international relationship; it is wholly a question of accepting an established institution of high character, and making effective all the fine things which have been said by us in favor of such an agency of advanced civilization. It would be well worth the while of the Senate to make such special effort as is becoming to record its approval. Such action would add to our own consciousness of participation in the fortunate advancement of international relationship and remind the world anew that we are ready for our proper part in furthering peace and adding to stability in world affairs.
The President's message was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. In reply to a request from the Committee, Secretary Hughes on March 2 supplied further information, but in view of the limited time before the adjournment of Congress the Committee did not take action. A resolution to take up the matter, offered by Senator King in the Senate on March 3, failed by a vote of 49 to 24.
Pan-American Conference.—The Fifth Pan-American Conference was scheduled to assemble at Santiago, Chile, on March 25, with delegates from all American republics except Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia. Among topics on the agenda may be noted the following:
Under topic XVI, Uruguay will propose that all the American countries adopt, as a principle of their foreign relations, that an encroachment upon the rights of any one of them, inflicted by a non-American power, must be considered an encroachment upon the rights of all, and should call for a uniform policy from all. It was under this doctrine, called in South America the Brum Doctrine, that Uruguay broke its relations with Germany upon the entrance of the United States into the World War.
The reduction of armaments proposed by Chile under topic XII is expected to be the most important and practical of the matters to be discussed, the success of which depends, principally, upon an agreement among Argentina. Brazil and Chile, the three leading naval and military powers of South America. The United States already having reduced its armed force to the minimum under the Five Powers Agreement of 1921, the present navy and army of this country will not be affected.
Of the nineteen points of the agenda, the United States proposes ten, seeking to bring about a coordinated plan or commercial agreements among the twenty-one American Republics. Prohibition is brought up by Venezuela, under the form of a progressive diminution of the production of alcoholic beverages.
The United States will be represented at the conference by a delegation headed by Henry P. Fletcher, Ambassador to Belgium, and including Senator Kellogg of Minnesota, Senator Pomerene of Ohio, former Senator Saulsbury of Delaware, George E. Vincent, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York; Frank C. Partridge of Vermont, William Eric Fowler of Washington and Dr. L.S. Rowe, Director of the Pan-American Union.
Brazil Rejects Naval Limitations.—Brazil goes to the Pan-American Conference at Santiago opposed to accepting any plan for reducing or limiting armament expenditures which would deprive her of an adequate protection for her coast and coastwise communications.
Afronio de Mello Franco, head of the Brazilian delegation said it was correct to infer that this attitude implied Brazil's unwillingness to accept the original suggestion of Chile that armament expenditures be limited or reduced in equal proportions, and also that Brazil was not willing to accept limitation of armaments to the status quo in South America.
"I believe that Argentina, Brazil and Chile—the three nations most interested—have the same pacific ideals," he asserted, "and are thoroughly in sympathy with the idea of lifting the burden of armament expenditures. But in approaching this question it is necessary for Brazil to take into consideration her national necessities, which primarily are those imposed by geography.
"These consist above all in protecting our coastwise communications, which are absolutely essential to preserving the unity of the republic. It must be remembered that Brazil possesses enormous stretches of territory and, unlike Argentina and less so than Chile, Brazil has not a railroad system which connects all parts of the country, especially in the north. Sea communications are the only means of reaching these isolated sections.
"For example, in the case of a seditious movement occurring in the State of Bahia some time ago, the only way the Government could send forces to put it down was by sea. The lack of rail communication consequently makes sea communication and its protection vital necessities of the national unity and welfare.
"War in South America is inconceivable, and it is the furthest from the thought of the Brazilian people and Government to seek hegemony in South America through naval power. All that we want is the adequate protection I have mentioned. As long as we are assured of this we are willing that Argentina and Chile should have such navies as they please; but reduction or limitation in equal proportion, or even preservation of the status quo, will not assure this because of the fact that Brazil's navy at present stands third in South America and we would be limited by these propositions in providing for our necessities.
"We have the fullest confidence that the discussion at Santiago, to which we are going in the friendliest spirit, will lead to an amicable understanding."