FROM SEPTEMBER 23 TO OCTOBER 23
GREAT BRITAIN
Fall of Labor Government.—On October 9, following the defeat in Parliament of the Labor Ministry under Premier Ramsay MacDonald, the King upon the Premier’s advice dissolved Parliament and called for general elections on October 29. The defeat of the ministry was on a motion, supported by the opposition parties, calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the reasons for the government’s suspending prosecution of a Communist editor named Campbell. As temporary editor of the Workers’ Weekly, the latter had published an editorial calling upon soldiers and sailors to band together, and “refuse to go to war, or to shoot strikers during industrial conflicts.” Prosecution was begun under the “Incitement to Mutiny” Act of 1797, but was later stopped by the government, it was said under pressure from the extreme left wing of the Labor Party.
In the campaign, however, this question was forgotten and the election turned upon larger problems of foreign and domestic policy. Both Tories and Liberals attacked the recently negotiated Russian Treaty, on the ground that the British Government pledged itself to guarantee a Russian loan on a vague promise of the Soviet Government to recognize Russia’s foreign debt, and that the guarantee was in reality a bribe to buy off Russian hostility in the East. The Conservative party also opposed vigorously the whole Labor program of national ownership and control. Liberals and Conservatives cooperated in the election by withdrawing candidates in each other’s favor to insure the defeat of Labor. In the event of a Conservative victory, which was anticipated, it was thought that a Conservative Ministry would be organized with some Liberal representation.
Irish Bill Adopted.—Early in October the Government Irish Bill passed through all its stages, receiving in the Commons a majority of 152. The Bill provided that the British Government appoint a delegate to represent Ulster on the Ulster-Free State Boundary Commission, the other two delegates representing Great Britain and the Free State. J. R. Fisher was later appointed, a London barrister identified with the Ulster Unionist Party.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Arbitration. Protocol Submitted to Powers.—The Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations ended October 2 with the unanimous decision of the Assembly to accept the so-called “Peace Protocol,” prepared by the Commission on Disarmament, for submission to the member nations. Prior to adjournment ten states had already signed the protocol, and the representatives of the major powers, including Great Britain, France, Japan and Italy, had promised the support of their governments.
By the provisions of the protocol the document must be ratified by a majority of the states represented on the League Council, and by at least ten other league members. If it is sufficiently ratified, a conference on reduction of armaments will be held at Geneva on June 15, 1925, to which non-member states will also be invited. The protocol will enter into force as soon as the resultant plan for reduction of armaments has been adopted by the League Council.
The following is an accurate condensed version of the protocol given out by the Associated Press:
The most important clauses are those which interpret and strengthen the League of Nations Covenant, provide a system for defining an aggressor State and machinery for the arbitration of all and any disputes which may arise, thus paving the way to what former Premier Briand in his speech today called “making war on war.”
Article II says:
The signatory states agree in no case to resort to war, either with one another or against a state which, if occasion arises, accepts all the obligations hereinafter set out, except in case of resistance to acts of aggression or when acting in agreement with the Council or Assembly of the League of Nations in accordance with the provisions of the covenant and the present protocol.
Article III commits the signatories to the acceptance of the compulsory arbitration clause of the World Court. Reservations are permitted, but accession must be given within a month after the protocol enters into force.
Article IV on arbitration completes the provisions of Article XV of the League Covenant as follows:
If a dispute submitted to the Council is not settled by it as provided in Paragraph 3, Article XV, the Council shall endeavor to persuade the parties to submit the dispute to judicial settlement or arbitration. If the parties cannot agree to do so, there shall, at the request of at least one of the parties, be constituted a committee of arbitrators. This committee shall, so far as possible, be constituted by agreement between the parties.
If within the period fixed by the Council, the parties have failed to agree in whole or in part, upon the number of names and powers of the arbitrators, and upon the procedure, the Council shall settle the point remaining in suspense. It shall, with the utmost possible dispatch, select, in consultation with the parties, the arbitrators and their president from among persons who, by their nationality, their personal character and experience, appear to furnish the highest guarantees of competence and impartiality.
After the claims of the parties have been formulated, the committee of arbitrators, upon the request of any party, shall, through the medium of the Council, request advisory opinion upon any points of law in dispute from the Permanent Court of International Justice. If none of the parties asks for arbitration, the Council shall again take the dispute under consideration. If the Council reaches a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other than representatives of any of the parties to the dispute, the signatory states agree to comply with the recommendations therein. If the Council fails to reach a report which is concurred in by all the members other than representatives of any of the parties to the dispute, it shall submit the dispute to arbitration.
In no case may a solution, upon which there has already been a unanimous recommendation by the Council, and which has been accepted by one of the parties concerned, be again called into question. The signatory states undertake to carry out in full and in good faith any judicial sentence or arbitral award that may be rendered and will comply with the solutions recommended by the Council.
In the event of a state failing to carry out the above undertakings the Council shall exert all influence to obtain compliance therewith. If it fails therein it shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto, in accordance with the provisions contained at the end of Article XIII of the Covenant. Should a state, in disregard of the above undertakings, resort to war, sanctions provided for by Article XVI of the Covenant, and interpreted in the manner indicated by the protocol, shall immediately become applicable to it.
Article V on domestic jurisdiction, which was amended at the request of the Japanese, says:
The provisions of Paragraph 8, Article XV of the Covenant, shall continue to apply in proceedings before the Council. If, in the course of arbitration, one of the parties claims that the dispute, or a part thereof, arises out of a matter which, by international law, is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the arbitrators shall on this point take the advice of the Permanent Court of International Justice, through the medium of the Council. The opinion of the Court shall be binding upon the arbitrators, who, if the opinion is affirmative, shall confine themselves to so declaring in their award. If the question is held by the Court or Council to be a matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, this decision shall not prevent a consideration of the situation by me Council or Assembly under Article XI of the Covenant.
Article VI says that if, in accordance with Paragraph 9 of Article XV of the Covenant, a dispute is referred to the Assembly that body shall have for the settlement of the dispute all the powers conferred upon the Council as to endeavoring to reconcile the parties in the manner laid down in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article XV of the Covenant and in Paragraph 1 of Article IV above.
Should the Assembly fail to achieve an amicable settlement:
If one of the parties asks for arbitration, the Council shall proceed to constitute the Committee of Arbitrators in the manner provided in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Paragraph 2 of Article IV above.
If no party asks for arbitration, the Assembly shall again take the dispute under consideration and shall have in this connection the same powers as the Council. Recommendations embodied in a report of the Assembly, provided that it secures the measure of support stipulated at the end of Paragraph 10 of Article XV of the Covenant, shall have the same value and effect as regards all matters dealt with in the present Protocol, as recommendations embodied in a report of the Council adopted as provided in Paragraph 3 of Article IV above.
If the necessary majority cannot be obtained, the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration and the Council shall determine the composition, the powers and the procedure of the Committee of Arbitrators as laid down in Paragraph 4 of Article IV.
By Article VII, if a dispute arises the states agree that, before submitting the same to arbitration or during arbitration, they will not increase to Armaments as regulated by next year’s conference Authority is provided to investigate whether increases occur and any guilty state will be summoned by the Council. If it refuses to obey the summons the Council, by a two-thirds majority, may decide upon measures to end the situation threatening peace.
Article IX recommends the establishment of demilitarized zones.
Article X, defining an aggressor, which was also amended at the request
A state which resorts to war in violation of the undertakings contained in the Covenant or in the present protocol, is an aggressor. Violation of the rules laid down in demilitarized zones shall be held as equivalent to a resort to war In the event of hostilities having broken out, any state shall De presumed to be an aggressor unless a decision of the settlement provided by Article. XIII and XV of the Covenant amplified by the present protocol, or comply with the judicial sentence or arbitral award, or with the unanimous recommendation of the Council, or has disregarded the unanimous report of the Council or a judicial sentence or arbitral award recognizing that the dispute between it and the other belligerent states arises out of a matter which by international law, is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the latter state.
Nevertheless, in the last case, the state shall only be presumed to be an aggressor if it has not previously submitted the question to the Council or Assembly in accordance with Article XI of the Covenant-also if it has violated provisional measures enjoined by the Council for the period, the proceedings are in progress, as contemplated in Article VII of the protocol.
Apart from the cases dealt with above, if the Council does not at once succeed in determining the aggressor it shall be bound to enjoin upon the belligerents an armistice, and shall fix the terms, acting if need be by two-thirds majority, and shall supervise its execution. Any belligerent which has refused to accept the armistice, or has violated its terms, shall be deemed an aggressor. The Council shall call upon the signatory states to apply forthwith against the aggressor the sanctions provided by Article XI of the present protocol, and any signatory state thus called upon shall thereupon be entitled to exercise the rights of a belligerent.
Article XI, on sanctions declares that as soon as the Council has called upon the signatory states to apply sanctions the obligations of the states in regard to sanctions of all kinds mentioned in Article XVI of the Covenant will immediately become operative for employment. The article continues:
Those obligations shall be interpreted as obliging each of the signatory states to cooperate loyally and effectively to support the Covenant of the league of Nations and, in resistance to any act of aggression, in a degree according to its geographical position and its particular situation as regards armaments. In accordance with Paragraph 3, Article XVI of the Covenant the signatory states agree jointly and severally to the undertaken to come to the assistance of the state attacked or threatened and to give each other mutual support by means of the facilities of reciprocal exchanges as regards provisions of raw materials and supplies of every lend, opening of credits, transport and transit, and for this purpose to take all measures in their power to preserve the safety of communication by land and sea of the attacked or threatened state. If both parties to the dispute are aggressors within the meaning of Article X, economic and financial sanctions shall be applied to both of them.
Article XIII calls upon the states to inform the Council what military and naval air forces they would be able to bring into action immediately for fulfillment of the obligations of the Covenant and protocol. This article also authorizes the operation of special regional military agreements, thereby meeting the French desire for security, provided the agreements are registered and published and are open to the adherence of all the member states.
Article XVI, which possesses importance to non-members of the League, says:
The signatory states agree that, in the event of a dispute between one or more of them and one or more states which have not signed the protocol and are not members of the League of Nations, such non-member states shall be invited, on conditions contemplated in Article XVII of the Covenant, to submit, for the purpose of pacific settlement, to the obligations accepted by states which are signatories to the present protocol. If the state so invited, having refused to accept said conditions and obligations, resorts to war against a signatory state, provisions of Article XVI of the Covenant, as defined by the present protocol, shall be applicable against it.
The concluding articles provide for the convocation of a conference for the reduction of armaments at Geneva, June 15, 1925, with all the countries invited, and the Council to draw up a definite program for the same. If by May the protocol has not been ratified by a majority of the permanent members of the Council and ten other League members, the Council shall decide whether to cancel the invitation or adjourn the conference.
If sufficiently ratified, the protocol will enter into force as soon as the plan for reduction of armaments has been adopted by the Council. If the plan is not carried out, the Council may declare the protocol null and void, but the grounds on which the Council so make this declaration must be set down by the conference itself.
Japan Forces Amendments to Protocol.—In the discussion of the protocol, the Japanese delegates objected that under the terms of Article V a nation might attaint the honor of a nation and thwart its vital interests under cover of legal concepts that made such conduct merely a matter of domestic jurisdiction and so beyond the reach of the League and its court. The case of Spain in Cuba was cited. In raising the objection, Japanese authorities insisted that immigration problems were less in their minds than possible problems in relation to China.
Article V was subsequently amended by the addition of the final sentence (in the summary above) which provides that a decision of this character in the World Court shall not prevent further consideration of the question by the League Council or Assembly. Article X was also amended by the addition of the second paragraph in the summary above.
In effect, the protocol, while fully recognizing the domestic rights of states, recognizes also that questions of domestic concern may also threaten international peace, and that it is the purpose of the league to attempt mediation even in such circumstances.
GERMANY
Dissolution of Reichstag.—At the request of Chancellor Marx, President Ebert on October 20 ordered the dissolution of the Reichstag and the issue of writs for a new election. The decision of the government resulted from the refusal of the Democratic party to consent to the strengthening of the Marx Cabinet by inclusion of three or possibly four Nationalist members. The cabinet with Socialist assistance succeeded in securing the adoption of the Dawes Plan by the necessary two-thirds majority, but thereafter had difficulty in obtaining consistent support. In the last election, of the 28,000,000 ballots cast, the government parties and adherents secured 13,500,000. A gain of three million votes would give the government a fairly safe working majority.
German Loan Subscribed.—The final agreement between bankers and the German Government for a loan of 800,000,000 gold marks, as provided for by the Dawes Plan, was signed in London on October 10. The bonds mature in twenty-five years, bear seven per cent interest, and were offered at ninety-two, thus yielding about seven and three-fourths per cent. Of the total issue, the American market took $110,000,000 or about one half; Great Britain about $55,000,000, and the remainder was taken by France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. In New York, as well as in the European markets, the issue was quickly oversubscribed.
Progress of Trade Treaties with Allies.—It was announced on September 24 that negotiations between Great Britain and Germany for a commercial agreement had collapsed. The break was due to the German refusal to grant exemption from tariff to British goods imported to Germany, and subject to practical exclusion under the new German tariff schedules.
Trade negotiations with France opened on October 1. The new French tax of twenty-six per cent on all German imports was regarded largely as a measure for purposes of bargaining in the conference to follow. As Premier Herriot pointed out in his opening speech, the fact that the two nations exchange commodities in practically equal amounts, offers opportunity for mutual cooperation. A linking of interests between French iron and German coal magnates was regarded as a possibility.
FRANCE
Proposed Recognition of Russia.—The commission appointed by the French Government to consider the recognition of Russia and draw up a formula therefor reported in favor of simply expressing the desire to discuss matters with the Soviet Government through duly authorized representatives, without a stiff list of preliminary requirements.
On October 18 the Cabinet considered the report, and it was regarded as certain that the Herriot Government would follow the example of Great Britain in according recognition.
NEAR EAST
Hussein Abdicates Hedjaz Throne.—Early in October King Hussein of the Hedjaz announced his abdication of the throne in favor of his son Ali. Hussein’s rule in Arabia was established in 1917 after a revolt from Turkey, with the support of Great Britain and her allies. Subsequently, upon the Turkish abolition of the Caliphate, Hussein assumed the title of Caliph, though his leadership of the church was not recognized by Egyptian, Indian and other Asiatic and African Moslems. His authority was further opposed by several of the nomad tribes of Arabia, including chiefly the Wahabis, a fanatic sect of Moslems east of the Hedjaz littoral of the Red Sea. The Wahabi’s hostility forced Hussein’s abdication, and on October 15 Mecca was occupied and Ali’s Government was removed to the port of Jeddah.
Hussein’s sons Feisal and Abdullah have been set up as rulers respectively in Irak and Transjordania, under British and French mandates.
Irak Frontier Dispute.—On October 15 the British Government sent an official request to the League of Nations Secretariat for an immediate meeting of the Council of the League to deal with the dispute between Great Britain and Turkey over the Irak frontier in the Mosul area. The two powers on September 30 had reached an agreement to respect the status quo in the district, but differed as to whether this referred to the status quo at the time of the Lausanne Treaty, or at the time of the new agreement, when Turkey had already occupied the territory in dispute. It was announced that a meeting of the Council to consider the matter would be held at Brussels October 27.
FAR EAST
Fall of Shanghai.—The city of Shanghai was finally taken in early October by the Kiang-su forces backed by the Peking Government. The defeated troops, without their leaders, were subsequently induced to disband on payment of twenty dollars to each soldier. The capture of Shanghai, it was thought, would enable the Peking leaders to increase the movement of troops northward for the campaign against Chang Tso-lin on the Manchurian border.
In Canton there were two days of rioting and warfare on October 14-15 between the merchant volunteer corps of Canton, with about 60,000 fighting strength, known as the “Chinese Fascisti,” and a “red” army of laborers. Property damage was estimated at $7,000,000. The trouble arose over landing a large consignment of arms for the volunteer corps, which Dr. Sun Yat-sen had at first prohibited and later permitted on payment of a large sum to his government. The fighting, it was stated, had no connection with the war at Shanghai.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Oil Agreement in Mexico.—Mexico City, October 15.—“An agreement has been reached on the fundamental points in the longstanding controversy between the oil companies and the government,” says a Treasury Department statement issued at the conclusion of the conferences between high government officials and the special committee of the Association of Producers of Petroleum in Mexico which has been here since September 17.
While no announcement was made concerning the details of the negotiations or the fundamental points upon which agreement is said to have been reached, it is learned authoritatively that the chief efforts of the committee were directed toward the following:
- Modification of the present taxation for the purpose of encouraging development and exploration of new fields where the quantity and quality of the petroleum deposits are uncertain. The foreign corporations interested in such development are not willing to invest large amounts of capital unless assured that they will not be forced to pay the duties applied to the rich coastal fields, where transportation is easy, and are likewise guaranteed uninterrupted possessions of the lands they hope to explore and develop.
- A mutually agreeable understanding for protection, in the proposed oil legislation to regulate Constitutional Article XXVII, of their rights to exploit petroleum deposits under lands acquired prior to the inception of the 1917 Constitution on which the owners or lessors had not previously undertaken or made contracts for petroleum exploration, nor manifested intention to do so.
While the committee adhered throughout the negotiations to the agreement reached between the United States and Mexico during last year’s pre-recognition conferences, the fact that the United States at that time reserved American oil rights involved in the lands described above gave considerable scope for negotiations during the conference just closed.
The production of petroleum in Mexico last year was about 150,000,000 barrels, or an average of 12,500,000 barrels a month. So far this year it is running at the rate of about 9,000,000 barrels a month. If it continues at this rate through the remainder of the year the entire year’s output will be less than 100,000,000 barrels, but it is expected that the last quarter will show a relative increase. At the present rate, however, production is no greater than in 1917 or 1916.