FROM FEBRUARY 3 TO MARCH 3
GERMANY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Special Session of Assembly.—Germany’s application for admission to the League of Nations was received at Geneva on February 10. The application made no conditions, but referred to the interpretations of Article 16 of the League Covenant which were made by the singers of the Locarno Agreement, to the effect that each state in the League might be called upon for military aid in a manner “compatible with its military and geographical situation.”
A special session of the League Assembly was set for March 8, to act on the German application.
Seats in League Council.—Prior to the entrance of Germany into the League of Nations, there were four permanent members of the League Council (Great Britain, France, Italy, and' Japan), and six other members were elected from year to year.
In view of the promise to Germany of a permanent seat in the Council, the question arose as to whether other nations should not be given permanent membership. Spain, Brazil, and Poland each advanced its claims, and it was proposed that one permanent seat should be shared by the nations in the Little Entente. France and Italy, as well as the Little Entente states, were favorable to the claims of Poland, since her admission to permanent membership would counterbalance that of Germany. On the other hand, Germany, as well as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, were strongly opposed to the admission of any other state besides Germany at this time. The final decision appeared to depend largely upon the attitude of Great Britain; and although the Foreign Minister, Sir Austen Chamberlain had given some support to the French thesis in favor of Poland, the Cabinet was divided on the subject and both parliamentary and public opinion were strongly opposed. It was argued that additional admissions would tend to divide the Council into two factions.
British opponents of the Polish claim are now rallying under the leadership of Lord Cecil (the former Lord Robert Cecil), who is Sir Austen’s co-delegate at Geneva and frequently has represented Great Britain on the League Council. Their press support was impressively strengthened today by the editorial in the Times discussing the proposed increase in membership of the Council.
“The country is obviously uneasy,” the Times said. “Why this haste and precipitancy? A really astonishing thing in all this controversy is that for once and almost for the first time in all these difficult years British opinion is emphatically and explicitly united. It is not going too far to say that the country, which, after the confusion of the war period and the jangle of the half-intelligible post-war diplomacy, had begun under the influence of the Locarno principles to follow moral instincts with greater confidence was definitely shocked by this unexpected proposal to reduce to terms of ordinary diplomatic bargaining an occasion that ought to have been an undarkened symbol of European reconciliation.—Baltimore Sun, February 28.
SOVIET REPUBLIC
Economic Recovery.—In the series of articles by leading statesmen on “Our New World” appearing in the London Post and New York Times, Christian Rakovsky, Russian Ambassador to France, on February 19-21, presented interesting information regarding the economic recovery of the territory under Soviet rule.
According to his figures, the capital invested in State controlled industries and railroads amounts to 12 billion roubles, of which the railroads represnt nearly half. Cooperatives control about half a billion roubles; and capital in the hands of private citizens and especially peasants does not exceed 7V2 billion roubles, exclusive of the value of land.
Production by state controlled industry in 1923-24 amounted to 66 per cent of the total, and in 1924-25 had increased to 79 per cent. In 1924-25 the total of agricultural and industrial production had risen to 7 1/2 per cent of 1913 figures. M. Rakovsky declared that with economic stabilization there had come a lessening of Bolshevik propaganda, and he expressed hope for economic and political understandings with both France and England.
Commenting on these figures, Mr. Walter Duranty in the New York Times was disposed to accept the statements made, but pointed out that most of the economic progress thus far has been the product of the peasant masses who form upwards of 90 per cent of the population. What the peasants want is cheap manufactured articles. The Soviet rulers cannot supply these without capital to establish factories, or capital to make purchases abroad.
The early economic recovery of Russia will depend largely, therefore, upon her securing foreign credits, and in Mr. Duranty's opinion the Soviet Government is now willing to admit not only the principle of recognition of state debts but also the right of foreign nationals to compensation for injuries suffered by the revolution, provided ample credits are granted in return.
Franco-Russian Debt Negotiations.—Franco-Russian debt discussions were reopened in Paris on February 24. From the statement of the Russian representative, M. Rakovsky, it appeared that the Soviet Government was willing to give considerable recognition to public and private claims, and would pay high interest on new credits. The debt to France amounts roughly to three billion dollars, of which two-thirds represent pre-war government and municipal loans, 10 per cent industrial loans, and 20 per cent war loans.
ITALY
Challenge to Germany Over Tyrol.—In a fiery speech before the Italian chamber early in February Premier Mussolini declared that Italy would not tolerate German interference with measures taken to “Italianize” the population of the Tyrol. Italy he declared, was “ready to carry her banners beyond the present frontiers, but back, never!”
The Tyrol territory known as the Upper Adige was ceded to Italy by Austria after the war, and is inhabited by German-speaking people who, though not pro-German, wish to preserve their language and customs. Italy has forbidden the use of German in schools, on street signs, etc., has introduced many Italian families, and has even forced the Tyrolese to translate their names into Italian. Although Austrian territory separates Tyrol from Germany, nationalists in Bavaria especially have expressed sympathy for the Tyrolese, and the Bavarian premier in a speech before the Bavarian Diet declared that Germans should do all in their power to extend aid.
In reply to Mussolini's speech, Foreign Minister Stresemann declared in the Reichstag on February 9 that while Germany accepted the boundaries fixed by the peace treaty, Germany would not permit herself to be hindered by “silly threats” from demanding just treatment for German minorities under foreign sovereignty. He hoped that Germany as a member of the League would have an opportunity to protest against such “insulting remarks.”
In a second speech of February 10, M. Mussolini pointed out that German racial minorities on the Upper Adige were not among those for which special provisions were made in the peace treaties, and that Italy would never consent to have the question taken up by the League or other outside assembly.
Latin Unity Against Germany.—In the course of an interview with a French journalist on February 26, Premier Mussolini advocated Franco- Italian solidarity.
The possibility of common danger, said Mussolini, should increasingly bring together France and Italy, who were not divided by any serious question and who, between them, represented 80,000,000 inhabitants, as many as the Germanic bloc. He called them the balance of masses. If that balance were maintained, he said, the peace of Europe would not be disturbed.
There were in Europe three counter-balancing masses of different races, Latin, Germanic, and Slav, he continued, and the latter two were separated by Poland. If the Latin mass was weakened or split, the balance disappeared.
In this connection, Mussolini said he supported the proposed admission of Poland to the Council of the League of Nations as a permanent member. She ought to enter at the same time as Germany and not later.
Pope Rejects Overtures—In a letter to the Papal Secretary on February 22, the Pope declared that recent measures of the Mussolini government, in righting the wrongs of former governments toward the church, “must not be interpreted to mean that the Vatican has modified its attitude toward the situation wherein it finds itself in Rome since the fall of temporal power in 1870.”
The letter was occasioned by the fact that several churchmen, with the consent of their superiors, had collaborated with a ministerial commission in drawing up new ecclesiastical legislation favorable to the church, and that these were about to be presented to the chamber.
The Pope’s letter was variously interpreted as a definite rejection of government overtures, or as an invitation to further concessions.
NEAR EAST
Great Britain Ratifies Irak Treaty.—The British House of Commons on February 18 ratified the Irak Treaty by which Great Britain continues her mandate over Irak for the next twenty-five years. Foreign Secretary Chamberlain stated at the time that negotiations were in progress between Great Britain and Turkey for final agreement about the Mosul area. In refuting the accusation that the British Government’s policy was controlled by oil interests, he said that Turkey had been willing, in exchange for sovereignty over the Mosul area, to grant British firms full concessions throughout the district.
FAR EAST
Manchurian Autonomy.—The most significant news from China in February was of a conference of delegates from the three provinces of Manchuria held at Mukden on February 16, at which it was decided that Manchuria must continue quite autonomous, until Peking had established a strong government. This apparently meant that foreign nations, and especially the Soviet government, must deal directly with the Manchurian government under Chang Tso-lin, and that Chang Tso-lin would recognize no orders from Peking.
At Peking the government was reported completely destitute of funds. Railway traffic was paralyzed. The National Armies were threatened by the advance of Wu Pei-fu’s forces from the south, and also by aggressive moves of Chang’s armies on the Manchurian border.
Japanese View of China’s Future.—In his article on “Japan’s Role in the World’s Destiny” in the New York Times of February 15, Baron Matsui, former Japanese Foreign Minister, expressed his opinion that the sure and only solution of China’s difficulties will be the coming of a “strong man.”
The present trouble in China, whatever the peculiar complications in this instance, is not an isolated phenomenon in the history of that country. It is a phase in a vicious circle which has repeated itself again and again in the past from time immemorial. China needs a strong man; no other government has been found possible in a country where distances are so vast and conditions and people so diverse.
The kind of chaos we see at present has always occurred in intervals between the emergence of strong men. Yet it is remarkable to observe that the country has after long years of disturbance always come out in the end as a united whole embracing all sections of that peaceful and industrious people. How long it will be before a single man can again achieve unquestioned supremacy none can foretell; while any other solution, such as federation of the provinces, seems equally impossible of realization.
Meanwhile I hardly know what line the powers can adopt in their own best interests and China’s. The suggestion has been put forward of joint control over certain departments of Chinese administration, such as finance, communications etc. Such an idea is, however, repugnant to the Chinese, especially now that their self-consciousness has become more pronounced'. The powers were all agreed at the Washington Conference to do their best to assist China in her work of salvation. It is certainly incumbent upon them to unite in a common policy and Japan certainly means to cooperate loyally in their deliberations. But that necessary assistance on the part of the powers can only be effectively rendered on condition that China herself is ready to collaborate in earnest.
Further, the magnitude of the interest at stake is not equally distributed between the powers. Multiplicity of counsel is apt to produce weakness in action, and whereas the advantage of one is the advantage of all the losses of some may be greater than the losses of others. Execution of a common policy alike beneficial to China and to the powers is not an easy undertaking. But solidarity of the powers having the larger interests is the indispensable basis of any solution which shall adequately guarantee the interests not only of those powers themselves but of all who desire orderly intercourse with China.
Great Britain and Japan have an ample field in which they may fruitfully collaborate. Both have immense interests in the Far East generally, interests which in no way clash at present and in which Japan discerns no occasion for a clash in the future. Japan heartily welcomes the cordial relations which exist between the two countries and sees in their continued unity the surest guarantee of lasting peace in that quarter of the globe.
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Deadlock Over Oil and Land Laws—In February Mexico sent replies to the United States and also to Great Britain, in answer to protests against the retroactive effect of her new land and petroleum legislation against alien ownership. According to press reports the Mexican position was not modified, and the deadlock appeared complete. It was announced on February 27, however, that Secretary Kellogg had decided to continue negotiations and would reply to the Mexican note.
In the meantime Colonel Henry M. Anderson, United States delegate before the Special Claims Commission charged with adjusting claims of United States citizens arising out of revolutionary disturbances in Mexico since 1910, left Mexico City for Washington on February 8. He declared that the Mexican Government, by its attitude before the commission, had completely repudiated the agreement made with the United States in 1924, by which the claims were to be settled.
Seizure of Church Property.—The new Mexican constitution authorizes the taking over of church property by the state, and requires that all priests and clergymen shall be native-born Mexicans. In February the Mexican Government began to put these policies into execution. Several priests, chiefly of Spanish birth, were deported or arrested. It was reported that some Catholic schools, owned and operated by United States citizens, had been closed.
As a result of the situation in Mexico, action on the extradition treaty with Mexico, which was before the United States Senate, was indefinitely postponed. Moreover the deportation proceedings against the Mexican General Francisco Coss, now imprisoned at San Antonio, were postponed for a year. It was believed that Colonel Torres, the officer who was handed over to the Mexican Government at Laredo on assurance that he would be granted a civil trial, had been later shot by a firing squad as a political offender.