FROM JANUARY 23 TO FEBRUARY 23
ENGLAND AND FRANCE
England May Waive Two Thirds of French Debt.—The full text of Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill’s reply to French Finance Minister Clementel outlining the British debt policy was published on February 8. The letter in effect made clear that Great Britain planned to ask from her European debtors only the fourteen billion gold marks she must pay America, and from this will deduct all reparations payments from Germany. It is calculated that, if the Dawes Plan works with complete success, England will receive about eight billion marks from Germany, leaving six billion to be paid by France and other European debtors. Of this France would be expected to shoulder more than half, or perhaps four billion marks; but this would be only about one third of her actual debt to Great Britain. In his note Mr. Churchill stated that payments from France might be in part based on French receipts from Germany, but that France would be expected also to pay a certain amount annually regardless of such receipts. It was expected that France would continue the negotiations in the near future.
German Armament Report Presented.—The Report of the Allied Military Control Commission on armament conditions in Germany was presented in full on February 18. The report was of forty-one pages, with voluminous annexes setting forth technical respects in which Germany had failed to carry out the Versailles Treaty, including hiding of arms, failure to destroy munitions machinery, the German recruiting system, maintenance of police, and the German General Staff plan to use Germany’s small army as skeleton of a larger military machine.
There was a divergence between France and Germany on the action to be taken in view of the report. England was believed to desire direct negotiations with Germany and, upon obtaining reasonable satisfaction, to evacuate Cologne and then discuss a security compact which should include Germany. France, on the other hand, preferred to publish this report in full to show that Germany was still a common menace to the Allied powers. France would not include Germany in a security agreement, or even consider such a step, until Germany had fully carried out the treaty obligations; and furthermore, France wished a security pact which would assure protection for Poland. An early conference on the subject between French and British officials was expected.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Results of Opium Conference.—The International Opium Conference ended on February 19 after more than three months of discussion. The conference was really divided in two bodies; the first, or Far Eastern Opium Conference, including only opium producing countries, and the second a larger conference in which Representative Stephen G. Porter, leading the United States delegation, was an active participant.
The Far Eastern Conference had earlier adopted an agreement to discontinue opium smoking in the Far East within fifteen years after China had effectively curbed over-production and smuggling, with a league commission to decide when a reasonable reduction in the growth of opium had been attained; and second, to abolish the farming system of opium traffic and substitute government monopolies.
In the general conference the American delegation fought hard to secure a decision for immediate reduction of opium production, but was opposed by the British and other delegations on the ground that nothing effective could be done until the Chinese Government was able to check over-production and smuggling. Subsequently, the American and also the Chinese delegations withdrew from the conference.
The convention as finally adopted consists of thirty-nine articles, with annexes, and according to the explanation issued “is calculated to complete and reinforce the Hague Convention by a series of measures destined to reduce the production and manufacture of narcotics and to tighten international control of the traffic.” It was signed on the final day of the conference by delegates of ten nations, including Belgium, Great Britain, Japan, Greece and Holland. A central anti-narcotics board will be appointed by the League Council, with United States and Germany participating through representatives appointed for this sole purpose, its expenses to be included in the budget of the League Secretariat and paid according to a scale by the signatory powers.
Britain Delays Action on Geneva Peace Protocol.—At the request of Great Britain, action by the League Council on the Geneva Peace Protocol was postponed from January until the meeting on March 9. In the meantime the British Government sought by correspondence to learn the attitude of the dominion governments on the question, and received replies from all except Ireland. The replies, although showing general sympathy with the aims of the protocol, expressed the belief that many of its provisions were hasty and ill-considered and that the ideal of peace should be aproached by gradual, practical stages. It was regarded as certain that the British Government would not sign the protocol without amendments, and that in any case the matter must go over until the League Assembly next September, making a June disarmament conference out of the question.
Criticism of the protocol in the Committee of Imperial Defense has been wide and destructive. Naval and military experts are understood to have raised the following objections:
That the protocol if left as it stands, makes an unlimited claim on Great Britain’s resources, because the league may request action by the British naval and military forces in widely scattered areas without notice and to an unlimited extent; that the protocol would, therefore, prevent a reasonable performance by the War Departments of their duty to the country which is to develop plans of defense in certain foreseen emergencies; that the protocol in its present form gives advantage in time of war to an unscrupulous aggressor over an adversary who desires peace by the combersome peace machinery provided in document; that provisions of the protocol have a decided tendency toward limitations of the rights of national commanders, governments and parliaments over their own forces.
It has been pointed out that the protocol omits to mention the rights of national representative assemblies altogether. It also is urged that the protocol, far from contributing practically to abolition of war, directly recognizes war as an essential instrument in international relations and actually encourages it in the case, for instance, of a state which may desire to remain neutral and may be ordered to make war on another state closely united to it, perhaps not only by ties of friendship, but even by political and national ties as those which bind Great Britain and her dominions.
Conference on Munitions Production Control Postponed.—A special committee of the League Disarmament Commission, meeting at Geneva on February 17, decided that it would be unwise to call a conference on control of private manufacture of munitions until after the conference on traffic in munitions to be held next May. This was due chiefly to the view of the British delegation, supported by Japan, Italy and Sweden, that such a conference would be useless without the cooperation of the United States, and that constitutional provisions would prevent the United States from taking part in a conference intended to put munitions manufacture and export under state control. It was decided, however, that the committee in the meantime should act as a committee of study, and ask all governments, including the United States, as to constitutional or other obstacles to state supervision.
RUSSIA AND EASTERN EUROPE
Trotsky Expelled and Papers Seized.—Upon Leon Trotsky’s departure for southern Russia on January 29, all his papers and notes were seized by order of the Soviet Central Committee. A decree was also issued dismissing Trotsky from his post as Commissar for the Army and Navy and appointing his former assistant as his successor.
Alleged Secret Clauses in Russo-Japanese Pact.—The German Local Anzeiger on January 14 published from a “hitherto very reliable source,” alleged secret clauses of the Russo-Japanese treaty signed at Peking in January, the clauses providing that in case of English, American or French menace to China, Russia would put 200,000 men at China’s disposal; that Japan should get all Saghalien in five years in return for giving Russia a fleet of cruisers, submarines, etc.; and that China’s army should be instructed exclusively by Russian and Japanese officers and should purchase its war materials from these two countries. Both the Japanese and Russian embassies in Berlin declared the story a pure invention.
Greece Protests Expulsion of Patriarch.—On February 11 the Greek Government sent a protest to the League of Nations against the order of Turkish authorities on January 30 expelling the Greek Patriarch and Archbishop, Mgr. Constantinos, from Constantinople. This was declared to be an infraction of the decision of the Mixed Committee on Exchanges of Greek and Turkish Populations, and a menace to the peaceful relations of the two countries.
The Turkish authorities took the ground that no violation of Turkish agreements was involved and that the Patriarch’s functions were not affected by his removal. It was expected that a solution of the problem would be found at the meeting of the League Council in March.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
New Naval Parley Broached.—It was revealed in the British House of Commons on February 18, and confirmed in Washington, that American diplomatic representatives had engaged in informal conversations with British, French, Italian and Japanese officials regarding the possibility of another conference to extend the principle of limitation to all types of naval vessels. President Coolidge, however, was reported to be still of the opinion that a call for such a conference would not be opportune until after the success or failure of the plans for armament reduction inflated at Geneva.
World Unresponsive to Arms Parley (Hector Bywater in Baltimore Sun of 15 February).—
That a second conference, whether held at Geneva or at Washington, will produce results as definite and as beneficial as those of the first, few political observers in this country believe. There would, of course, be less chance of a successful outcome if an attempt were made to regulate armaments of every description instead of naval strength alone, but even in the latter case there are serious obstacles in the way of success.
The very lack of enthusiasm manifested in France and Japan, and even in Great Britain, is an ominous sign. French opinion is almost solidly opposed to any further restriction being placed on the growth of the navy, because of the intimate connection between sea power and military defense. France is now forced to rely on African troops to bring her army up to war strength, and these troops could not be transported to Europe unless the sea routes were adequately guarded. It is to insure such protection that the big shipbuilding program was begun in 1922, and the French military authorities, who wield great influence, would stoutly oppose any reduction in the number of auxiliary craft now building or projected.
For Great Britain the naval problem resolves itself into a question of safeguarding seaborne commerce, upon which the country depends for its existence. As long as other powers maintain large auxiliary fleets capable of attacking her merchant ships she will consider herself bound to keep in service a strong force of cruisers and anti-submarine craft, and it is doubtful whether she would accept equality with the United States in these types unless a ratio far in excess of American requirements were agreed to.
Since it is the American aim to achieve such equality, while at the same time avoiding further expenditure on new ships, there appears to be a fundamental conflict of interests between the two chief naval powers. To reconcile these interests might not be impossible, but it would certainly be difficult. We must assume, however, that the whole position will be carefully reviewed and all possible contingencies allowed for well in advance of the actual summoning of a conference.
The Japanese press for months past has been paying close attention to the question of disarmament, its attitude being one of qualified—very qualified—approval. Generally speaking the line of argument it takes is that the United States should set about creating “a peaceful atmosphere everywhere” before submitting any further plan of limitation.
The Tokio Asahi points to the anti-Japanese legislation of last year as the sort of thing that is best calculated to make Japan set her face like flint against fresh proposals for naval reduction. "It would be an act of inconsistency,” the journal adds, “for the American Congress to suggest another disarmament conference, on the one hand, and to pass the Japanese exclusion bill on the other.”
The Kokumin argues that the deficit in Japanese naval strength caused by her acceptance of the 5-5-3 ratio in heavy ships must be made up in other ways, and it concludes significantly:
"That the Japanese delegates did not publicly announce their opposition to the Hughes proposal for restricting subsidiary vessels is no proof of Japan’s acceptance of his plan. Since then, moreover, the general situation in the world has witnessed gradual changes, and there is even a danger of a serious change coming over the Far Eastern situation in future. It is, in such circumstances, absolutely impossible for Japan to submit to the same ratio as the Hughes plan provided for the limitation of subsidiary craft.”
Count Soeshima, who has written frequently and ably on Japan-American relations, is unsympathetic toward the idea of a new naval conference, evidently because he has taken America’s exclusionist policy very much to heart. After complaining that even at the first conference Japan was treated as a delinquent, he declares that her position would be far worse at a second parley, “for the obvious reason that there is all the difference in the world between the strength of this country in 1921 and at present. Japan had then a powerful fleet that was the dread of the powers. Her specie holdings exceeded two billion yen. The Anglo-Japanese alliance was still in existence. In fact, she was one of the three great powers of the world, while the others had not yet recovered from their war wounds.
“But what is the state of our country now?” he asks. “Despite the loan raised in America at a high rate, our specie has decreased to two thirds of the former figure and the earthquake has destroyed one tenth of our national wealth. It is to be feared that another international conference held at the instance of self-willed America may work incalculable disadvantage to the country. Japan herself should, therefore, invite the powers to a great conference in Tokio and preside over discussion of the questions of the abolition of race discrimination, respect for the integrity of China and for the vested interests of the powers in that country, and also the questions of opium and disarmament.”
These are the words, not of a militarist or a jingo, but of one who was until recently a fervent advocate of friendship with the United States.
The Jiji, like other Japanese papers, points to the absence of any improvement in the situation which three years ago wrecked the Hughes Plan for rationing auxiliary fleets. Since conditions today are virtually the same, it sees no reason to hope for a solution of the problem which proved so baffling at that time.
“Although Japan is in favor of limitation in principle, she could only consent to it on terms,” we are warned. "At present her strength in auxiliary craft, particularly submarines, is far below that of Britain, France and America, and there would be a danger of Japanese submarine strength being reduced to nil if unfavorable terms were agreed upon. For a country of limited financial means it is most imperative that her submarine power should be augmented so as to forbid the approach of hostile squadrons to her long coastline. All other powers also have their peculiar national conditions which make it difficult for them to accept such limitation. Not until these difficulties are removed can a new naval conference be profitably and successfully staged.”
In fact, the Jiji does not think that America, realizing how failure would hurt her prestige, will venture to call a conference unless fully assured of its success.
What Viscount Kato, the premier, thinks of the matter has yet to be disclosed, though he was less reticent when the first conference was impending, being then without ministerial responsibility. In August, 1921, he expressed doubt as to whether America was “really sincere and in earnest in advocating the limitation of armaments.”
“It is conceivable,” he said, “that religionists and others in America, who have been loud in their advocacy of disarmament, moved their government to draft the present proposal.”
But if a discreet silence reigns in official circles, the tone of the whole press is indicative of Japan’s reluctance to engage in negotiations for the further pruning of her armaments. French sentiment is no more cordial, while even in Great Britain the question of a new arms compact is not treated as if it were really urgent or immediately desirable. Whether this lack of responsiveness abroad will discourage Senator Borah remains to be seen. It is possible that the difficulties outlined in the foregoing are less formidable than they seem. From this side of the ocean, however, they appear well-nigh insuperable.
New Japanese Ambassador.—Ambassador Matsudaira, new Japanese envoy to the United States, left Tokio for Washington on February 16. The Ambassador was formerly Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs under Baron Shidehara.
German Commercial Treaty Ratified.—On February 10 the United States Senate ratified with reservations the commercial treaty recently negotiated between the United States and Germany. Th chief reservation stipulated that nothing in the treaty should be interpreted to affect existing immigration laws, or the right of either country to enact such statutes. This is Germany’s first long-time agreement with a former opponent. It will be taken up by the Reichstag Foreign Affairs Committee before its ratification is considered by the Reichstag.
New Chilean Government.—After four months in power, the military Junta that ousted President Arturo Alessandri in Chili was itself overthrown at the close of January by an organization of younger military officers. At the invitation of the new group, President Alessandri decided to return to Chili. A cabinet was formed headed by members of his party.