FROM AUGUST 23 TO SEPTEMBER 23
ITALY IN THE ADRIATIC
ITALIAN SEIZURE OF CORFU.—Following the assassination of Italian members of the commission engaged in establishing the Greek-Albanian frontier, Italy dispatched an ultimatum to Greece demanding an immediate investigation and payment of an indemnity amounting to about two million dollars within five days. The Greek reply on August 31 was declared unsatisfactory, and Italian naval and military forces proceeded at once to occupy Corfu and other small adjacent islands. A full Italian Army Corps was subsequently landed at Corfu.
The accompanying proclamation declared that by her occupation of Corfu Italy had no intention of committing an act of war but was only seeking "to safeguard her prestige and manifest her unshakable determination to obtain the reparation due her in conformity with custom and international law."
SETTLEMENT BY COUNCIL OF AMBASSADORS.—In the crisis aroused by the seizure of Corfu, and while the League of Nations Council was discussing its ability to intervene, the Council of Ambassadors of the Allied Powers at once undertook measures to secure a peaceful settlement of the dispute. Greece on September 9 replied to a note from the council indicating her willingness to accept such terms of settlement as might be laid down, and on September 19 in Phalero harbor fired salutes of twenty-one guns to Italian, British, and French naval vessels, in part fulfilment of the measure of apology prescribed.
The Council of Ambassadors further dispatched a commission to supervise the investigation undertaken by the Greek Government to secure and punish those responsible for the crime. It was agreed that upon the commission's report that Greece had fulfilled this part of her responsibility, the question of the amount of indemnity should be referred to the Hague Court. On the other hand if the Greek action were unsatisfactory, Italy would be free to demand an additional fifty million lire for the costs of occupying Corfu.
Italy, after strong pressure from France and especially Great Britain, agreed to evacuate Corfu on September 27, without awaiting full compliance on the part of Greece.
INTERVENTION BY LEAGUE.—At the time of the Corfu crisis there was vigorous agitation among the delegates at the League of Nations Assembly and Council in session at Geneva for assertion of the League's right to intervene to prevent war. This right Italy denied, declaring that no act of war had been committed, and that the questions involved should first go before the Council of Ambassadors as the body which had appointed the commission to settle the Albanian frontier in execution of the Treaty of Versailles. After a stormy secret session of the Council on September 20, it was decided that, without direct reference to the Italo-Greek dispute, the following three questions should be submitted to the World Court:
First—The degree to which a State is responsible for crimes committed in its territory.
Second—How far the League is competent to take an attitude in an international dispute which is already engaging the attention of a separate body such as the Conference of Ambassadors.
Third—How far a State which is a member of the League has the right to take coercive measures against another member, or whether this is not the duty of the League alone and as a whole.
EFFECT ON LEAGUE OF NATIONS.—What has happened, of course, has been the application of strong pressure by France and England upon Mussolini—pressure he dared not withstand. He had already insisted that he could not accept the interference of the League of Nations, and to save his face, the League's terms of settlement—terms which involved a compromise of the usual sort—were put forward by the Council of Ambassadors. This also suited the French plans exactly. France feared the creation of a precedent of League action which Great Britain would use against her on behalf of Germany. As for the British, they were willing to get the matter settled on any terms which would prevent war and leave the League intact. Practical statesmen like Lord Robert Cecil looked at the realities of the situation. France, with the unhappy acquiescence of Great Britain, rules Europe today. France and England are the force behind the League of Nations, just as they constitute the strength of the Council of Ambassadors. In the British view, it does not at present matter very much by what machinery war is averted, provided the League is not too publicly revealed as impotent.—New Republic, 19 September, 1923.
THE DILEMMA OF BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY—Consider the degree of British isolation. It can hardly be denied that today France exercises a military hegemony much more complete than that which in the past provoked British resistance in the shape of wars lasting generations; that Belgium and other small states, defense of whose rights figured so enormously in the emotions of the British during the war, now make common cause with France; that Turkey, defeated and prostrate as she was at the time of the armistice, has since been able successfully to defy Great Britain; that Italy by the occupation of territory which was recently a British protectorate now takes steps which may well be the beginning of naval domination of the eastern Mediterranean, and which in the old days Great Britain would never have tolerated for a moment; and that in the direct Franco-German negotiations now begun Great Britain is ignored.
Lloyd George summarizes the situation by the statement that Great Britain has not withdrawn from the Continent but has been pushed out amid the sniggers of the world. Add to the ex-Premier's statement the significant fact in relation to the forces which the government has had to consider during the last year, that the papers of all three of the great newspaper trusts in England rejoice at the discomfiture of the League and bitterly blame the government.
One policy urged by part of this opposition has naturally gained plausibility by recent events. The policy in question is what its protagonists term the "American policy" of washing our hands entirely of the Continent to the extent of formal withdrawal from Cologne, etc., and devoting all energies to our overseas empire, letting Europe stew. But obviously a policy of complete isolation and intensive imperial development must include one of thoroughgoing imperial defense based on the maintenance of naval preponderance with coaling stations, open lines of sea communications, etc. The two things always have and inevitably must go together. We could not tamely see, for instance, naval control of the Mediterranean pass from our hands, or our position in Malta, Gibraltar and Egypt threatened; and thus we should be compelled to meet in some way the growth of Italian imperialism. The preservation of naval supremacy which any intensive imperial policy involves means now—in these days of air power, more than ever—continental alliance. Isolation from Europe for a world-wide empire or commonwealth having its center in Europe is a clear impossibility.
The other alternative urged by the very considerable forces in England which oppose the government's present foreign policy is to share the French hegemony and co-operate in the more or less permanent subjugation of Germany.—New Republic, 19 September, 1923.
RENEWED DISPUTE OVER FIUME.—In the midst of Italy's dispute with Greece, peace in the Balkan region was further threatened by a sharp note from Italy to Jugoslavia over the status of Fiume.
By the Treaty of Rapallo in 192o Fiume was made a free state, and its eastern suburb of Susak was given to Jugoslavia for use as a port. The treaty, however, left uncertain the exact boundary line between the free state and Jugoslavia, and especially the ownership of Porto Baros, which contained harbor facilities near Fiume. On August 31 a compromise agreement was reached by negotiations between Italy and Jugoslavia in accordance with which Fiume and the district in dispute were to be administered by a joint commission on which Italy, Jugoslavia, and the free state were all represented.
Immediately thereafter, Premier Mussolini sent a demand to the Belgrade Government that unless this agreement were ratified within fifteen days Italy would be free to take such steps as she thought fit.
The Fiume local government resigned on September 16. Italy did not formally annex Fiume, as was expected, but sent General Giardino, third in command of Italian armies, to act as military governor. Assurances were given to the powers that this was only a temporary measure, and a new invitation was sent to Jugoslavia to send delegates to Geneva for further conferences over the question.
MUSSOLINI'S POLICY.—As to Fiume, the anxieties of Italy are comprehensible. The city bears an Italian name and is populated largely by Italians. The only broad gauge railroad through the mountains to the Eastern Adriatic coast has its terminus there. Croat dominion there would be naturally unsatisfactory to Italy, and the opening of the new Jugo-Slav port nearby affords the Italian Government some reasonable excuse for asking for more than half-way powers at Fiume. But Mussolini's demand that the Jugo-Slav Commissioners accept his settlement in fifteen days or take the consequences was as harmful in tone as was the ultimatum to Greece. Nations, especially Balkan nations, do not enjoy being openly browbeaten.
The nervous Italian Premier, brooding amid the Napoleon books in his library, is making Italy a dangerous power to world security. The people of Italy had best put a curb on him. They are by no means unanimous in hacking him. They still have an able opposition press. The best place to check him is at home.—New York Times, 6 September, 1923.
GERMANY AND THE RUHR
GERMANY ABANDONS PASSIVE RESISTANCE.—In a speech on September 12 Chancellor Stresemann definitely indicated the steps the new German ministry was willing to take to make terms with France. He practically admitted the failure of passive resistance in the Ruhr and presaged the withdrawal of government subsidies in support of this policy. Furthermore the Chancellor made more definite the nature of the guarantees based on private property which Germany would offer for payment of reparations. He proposed the formation of a trust company in which the Allies would be represented, to hold mortgages on all private property that could be disposed of abroad, the revenues from which could be used in making payments.
GERMAN REPARATIONS PROPOSAL.—Berlin, September 13.—Chancellor Stresemann today was waiting to see what France's response would be to his proposal in last night's speech, offering the allies a direct share in all German state and private industries.
This proposal represents the high point in Chancellor Stresemann's policy, and is an offer unprecedented in history. The German shares thus offered would be placed in the hands of the reparations commission, which would sell them in the international market for ready cash.
America, as the world's richest nation, doubtless will be a heavy investor. Hence, it is important to know the value of these pledges.
The state railroads before the war earned net profits of $250,000,000; private corporations and stock companies earned $400,000,000 net; state mines and forests, $30,000,000—a total of $680,000,000 a year under the best of conditions.
Chancellor Stresemann's twenty-five or thirty per cent participation would yield a maximum of $170,000,000 a year. The capitalized value of the shares offered equals only about one-tenth of the reparations sum demanded under the present schedule. At least ten per cent must be deducted from these figures for German territory lost in the peace settlement. Also it would mean several years before German industry could reach its pre-war prosperity.
Hence Chancellor Stresemann's offer is at best only a partial solution. It must eventually be supplemented by a readjustment of the reparations demands. Its immediate advantage to France and Belgium is that it would provide them with much-needed cash. Its advantage to Germany is that it would interest world investors, especially Americans, in German stability and prosperity and would guarantee to Germany an opportunity for development free from military or trade restrictions.
But it is precisely for this reason that the plan is opposed by a strong section of French opinion. The Germans see a conflict of interests in Paris, between those wanting reparations and those wanting to cripple Germany as a competitor of the new French iron and steel industry.
Meanwhile Germany at the edge of the abyss, is nervously awaiting the outcome.—Baltimore Sun, 13 September, 1923.
REVOLT THREATENER—Berlin, September 22.—Chancellor Stresemann, believing his last days in office have come unless he takes energetic action, has called a meeting of the Cabinet tomorrow to approve the following program, which already has been agreed to:
First—Ruhr and Rhineland deputies, industrial and labor leaders, who have been summoned to Berlin, will be told on Monday that the Government is about to capitulate to France.
Second—The Premiers of the Federated States, who also have been called to the capital, will be told the same thing on Tuesday, and informed of the wishes of the people of the occupied areas. Premier Von Knieling, of Bavaria, may not answer the summons.
Third—Chancellor Stresemann will formally proclaim the abandonment of passive resistance in a speech before the Reichstag on Wednesday.
The Chancellor is fully cognizant of the risk he is running in lifting passive resistance without first obtaining Premier Poincaré's promise to free Germans imprisoned in the Ruhr, and to permit the return of those expelled.
M. Poincaré is standing firm on his announcement that he will conduct no negotiations whatsoever until passive resistance is formally abandoned.
The fate of the republic depends upon the support the Chancellor can rally after he makes his Reichstag announcement. The Nationalists think he will fall. They are ready to seize power and have secretly selected a directorate of five men, in co-operation with representatives of the reactionary People's party "to save Germany's honor" if capitulation in the Ruhr brings about the Chancellor's downfall.
The German Communist leaders, Heinrich Brandler and Herr Talmeyer, have arrived in Moscow and informed the Russians that the time for a revolution in Germany is ripe. They express themselves confident of their ability to obtain control within the German state, but they need the international proletariat against outside capitalistic enemies.—Baltimore Sun, 23 September, 1923.
SPAIN
MILITARY DICTATOR SEIZES SPANISH GOVERNMENT.—By a military coup d'etat on September 13 the Spanish Cabinet was overthrown and a dictatorship was established under General Primo Rivera, captain general of the military district of Barcelona, Following the resignation and flight of the Alcumenas ministry and the proclamation of military rule in Madrid, King Alfonso called upon General Primo Rivera to set up a military directorate.
The new government brought about the dissolution of parliament, declared for renewal of the Moroccan campaign, pledged itself to strict economy in government expenditures, and proclaimed a strongly nationalist policy for the future, including efforts for the recovery of Gibraltar for Spain. The reorganization in Spain followed the general lines of the Fascisti movement in Italy.
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
GOVERNMENT WINS IRISH ELECTION.—The election of a new Irish Parliament on August 27 resulted in the selection of only forty-four republican members out of a total of 153. Of the remaining 109 members sixty-seven are definitely pledged supporters of the present government. The new parliament met on September 19 and reelected Cosgrave president by acclamation.
BRITISH OPPOSE TWELVE-MILE LIMIT.—Washington, September 19.—British reply to Secretary Hughes' proposal for a reciprocal agreement on ship liquor and liquor smuggling was received at the State Department today and was described by officials as "in general, not sympathetic to the proposals." The British Government plans, however, to present the question to the British imperial conference which meets in London next month.
Apparently there is some hope in Washington that reference of the question to the imperial conference leaves a door open to ultimate negotiation of a treaty along the lines of that proposed by Secretary Hughes. In any event the State Department regards the matter as still in an indefinite state.—New York Times, 20 September, 1923.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE TEN.—The work of the League of Nations Assembly during September at Geneva was accomplished chiefly in subcommittees, the full sessions being given over to speeches on current international questions. The time of the Council was primarily occupied by the problems raised by Italian action at Corfu and Fiume. In the assembly committee on amendments a resolution was adopted for presentation to the assembly which endeavored to give a clearer meaning to Article Ten of the League Covenant. The commission adopted a new compromise formula replacing the Canadian amendment. It begins by emphasizing the existence of a general desire for precision in the meaning of Article X and recommends that the assembly adopt several clauses in the form of a resolution.
The first clause is that in case the council of the league deems it necessary to recommend the application of military measures because of an aggression or a menace of aggression, the council will take into account the geographical situation and special conditions surrounding each state.
The second clause declares that it is the right of the constitutional powers of each member state to decide the nature and the extent of its obligation to maintain the independence and integrity of territory of members, and to what extent it should furnish military assistance.
The last paragraph reads:
"However, a recommendation given by the council will be considered of the highest importance and will be taken into consideration by all the members, with a desire to execute in good faith their engagements."
This interpretive resolution is generally regarded as removing any of the existing fears that Article X would force states too far into possible military adventures abroad without the sanction of the home parliaments.
WORK ON DISARMAMENT AGREEMEN T.—Geneva, September 14.—The little Powers sustained a defeat today when in the Commission on Disarmament Norway's amendments to the proposed mutual guaranty treaty were voted down after both France and Great Britain had spoken against them.
Their purport was to compel the Powers in return for the mutual assistance of the little Powers to agree to the following:
First—To register all treaties and conduct an unaggressive foreign policy.
Second—To admit compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Lord Robert Cecil combated both proposals, saying that such conditions make acceptance of the treaty well nigh impossible and that compulsory jurisdiction was not necessary anyway because the same results could be had by direct negotiations.
France also opposed the amendments earnestly, which brought a bitter retort from Christian L. Lange of Norway that the amendments had been offered in the names of the smaller Powers, which find the gulf between them and the league's big Powers constantly widening.
Although the proposed treaty for mutual guaranties, supposed to be the first real step in European disarmament, may be adopted in some shape, an indication of what will happen when it is put up to the Governments is afforded by the result of the amendments to the covenant which are already before them.—Baltimore Sun, 15 September, 1923.
UNITED STATES
RECOGNITION OF MEXCO.—Washington, August 27.—Virtual, but not actual technical recognition was accorded today to the Obregon Government in Mexico, when the State Department sent a communication to that Government, through our embassy in Mexico City.
This message, it is said, will leave no doubt in the minds of President Obregon and his advisers that full and formal recognition will soon arise out of the Payne-Warren negotiations with the Mexican Commissioners.
The note dispatched today, it is learned, was one of the preliminary exchanges to the actual granting of recognition and the technical restoration of diplomatic relations.—New York Times, 27 August, 1923.
OPEN DOOR IN TANGIER.—Washington, September —20.—The United States Government has sent identical notes to Great Britain, France and Spain urging that the principle of the open door, or equal commercial opportunity, be observed in the settlement of the Tangier question.
While the difficulties confronting France, Great Britain and Spain with respect to Tangier are ostensibly economic, having to do with the question of port duties and trade privileges, the conference has had an undercurrent of international politics which has made it of much greater importance than has generally been admitted. The city of Tangier, located almost opposite Gibraltar, has been recognized by military authorities to be of vast strategic importance, and especially since the development of the submarine during the World War it has been recognized that a submarine base at that point would menace Gibraltar as the key to the Mediterranean.
Notwithstanding the ostensibly international status of Tangier, there has been much dissatisfaction on the part of Great Britain because of the great influence exercised over the district by the French. This influence, it is stated, arises from the fact that the Sultan of Morocco is the nominal head of the Government of Tangier and the French, because of their dominant position in Morocco have been able to exercise great influence over the Sultan. It has been charged that France is endeavoring to nullify the internationalization arrangement and set herself up as in absolute control of Tangier, and the further charge has been made that she wishes to do this in order to be left free to establish a submarine base which would control the Straits of Gibraltar and hence the Mediterranean.
The United States Government, despite its action in sending a note to the interested powers, is carefully refraining from meddling in the political aspects of the situation.—New York Times, 21 September, 1923.
FAR EAST
NEW JAPANESE MINISTRY.—Tokio, August 28 (Associated Press).—Count Gombei Yamamoto has been appointed Premier of Japan to succeed Baron Kato. The appointment followed a summons to court by Prince Regent Hirohito, who acted upon the advice of the Genro, or elder statesmen. The new Premier is proceeding toward the formation of a Cabinet which is expected to be completed soon.
The funeral of Premier Kato, who died last Friday, was held today.
Count Yamamoto ranks high in the political and social life of Japan. He was Premier from February, 1913, to April, 1914. He is an Admiral, retired. He was created a. Baron in 1902 and a Count in 1907. The Count visited in the United States in 1907 as a member of the suite of Prince Fushimi. Count Yamamoto was born in October, 1852.