FROM JUNE 3 TO JULY 3
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Tacna-Arica Plebiscite Abandoned.—At the close of June the American representative, General Lassiter, presented to the Tacna-Arica Plebiscite Commission a motion that “a free and fair plebiscite, as required by the award, is impracticable of accomplishment.” This motion was adopted by the votes of the United States and Peru, Chili opposing. Subsequently General Lassiter and his staff boarded the U.S.S. Galveston and proceeded to the United States. The Chilean Ambassador in Washington informed Secretary of State Kellogg that his government considered General Lassiter’s conduct “illegal and exceeding the powers vested in him,” and that Chili would no longer take part in the informal negotiations, instituted at Washington by Secretary Kellogg.
Unquestionably the United States has lost a certain amount of prestige in Latin America through the failure of negotiations thus far. The United States’ position was sufficiently set forth by General Lassiter in his speech to the plebiscitary commission, released at Washington last week:' “Flagrant as have been the outrages to which Peruvian electors and sympathizers have been subjected and pitiful as have been the sufferings of the helpless victims it is not these outrages themselves that in my opinion have constituted the most serious phase of the long continued course of violence, oppression, persecution and discrimination that has marked the past year in this territory.
“The vital factor in the situation has been the attitude, of the Chilean authorities as shown conclusively by their continued failure to take adequate action to secure to Peruvians the due and equal protection of the law or a reasonably free and equal opportunity for the exercise of plebiscitary rights.”—Time, 28 June.
Canadian Change of Government.—Since the parliamentary elections in Canada last October the Liberal Ministry headed by Mackenzie King has had a precarious existence, with only 101 Liberal votes and dependent upon the 28 Progressive and Independent members to overcome the 116 votes of the Conservative party.
On June 28, as a result of the revelation of extensive corruption in customs administration, the Ministry was defeated and forced to resign, after the refusal of Governor General Byng to dissolve parliament and call a new election. Arthur Meighen, former premier and conservative leader, organized a new cabinet, but was soon defeated, and parliament was dissolved for a new election. There was much Liberal criticism of Governor General Byng’s refusal to call an election at once upon the defeat of the Liberal government.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Brazil and Spain Threaten Withdrawal.—The struggle of Brazil and Spain for permanent seats in the League of Nations Council reached a climax at the Council meeting which opened on June 7. To this meeting Spain sent only a minor official, and, subsequently, without definitely stating her intention to withdraw from the League, declared that unless Spain were accorded a permanent Council seat she would send no delegate to the September Assembly.
The Brazilian representative, Dr. De Mello Franco, at first absented himself from the meeting and then handed to the League secretary a telegram from his government indicating Brazil’s intention to withdraw from the League. In a later note the Brazilian government bitterly criticized the conduct of the League, condemned the limitation of permanent Council seats to the great military powers, and objected to alleged dictation by these powers as to the composition of the Council.
Friends of the League consoled themselves with the thought that the action of Spain and Brazil would at least facilitate the admission of Germany with a permanent Council seat in September. Furthermore, the withdrawal of Spain was only tentative, and the action of Brazil might be reversed by the new president of Brazil who takes office in October.
Work of Disarmament Commission.—The technical military committee of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission continued its work during June, and by the end of the month the sub-committees of experts on land, naval, and air armaments were preparing reports for a plenary session of the military committee, after which the committee planned a three-week recess. Little progress was. made; the delegates were dominated by the interests of the particular nations which they represented; and the efforts of some at least appeared to be directed chiefly toward preventing a final report before the League Assembly in September and the admission of Germany, France, supported by Italy and by some of the smaller powers, opposed the separate consideration of air, land, and naval armaments, and also insisted that all the “potential” resources of countries must be considered in measuring their military strength.
In the Baltimore Sun of 30 June appeared the following summary of proposals favored by the United States delegates which were rejected:
Thus far, not a single proposal advanced by the Americans has been accepted.
First, the commission voted that total tonnage only be considered for the determination of the strength of the navies.
Second, it rejected consideration by classes, which was the dominating principle of the Washington naval pact.
Third, it threw out consideration of trained reserves or material war stocks as factors in ascertaining the war strength of armies.
Fourth, it rejected the American viewpoint that air establishments should not be limited commercially by deciding the air strength of a country should be based upon the total horsepower of its airplanes and the cubic capacity of its' dirigibles.
Fifth, it refused to treat disarmament in separate categories.
Lastly, it decided, despite the opposition of the United States, to take three weeks’ vacation, throwing the deliberations into August, when less than a month intervenes before the September assembly when readjournment is inevitable.
Decisions Reached.—By the middle of June the Military Committee had reached agreement that “theoretical” limitation might be looked for in the following fields: (1) Land, sea, and air effectives constantly available; (2) length of voluntary or compulsory service; (3) war materials in use or in stock; (4) expenditure on training and in cost of armament materials as a whole; (5) chemical preparations; (6) aeronautical preparations; (7) preparations for utilizing the merchant marine for war; (8) industrial preparations in general. These were “theoretical,” not necessarily “practical.”
In its final conclusions about “standards by which land armaments may be compared” the land sub-committee finally decided that “ultimate” war armaments lend themselves to approximate comparison and should be taken into account; that trained effectives constitute the primary standard, but that they must be considered in conjunction with other factors, namely, materials in service and in stock, trained reserves, the number and composition of larger peace-time units, periods of service with the colors, and the time and organization required for complete mobilization of national resources.
In the naval sub-committee the Franco-Italian bloc secured the decision that comparison can be based only on total tonnage of fleets and not in tonnage by classes. This, it was decided, applied also to reserve ships, constituting “naval materials.” Only the United States, Great Britain, and Chili voted against this last decision, eleven nations voting in all. The United States delegation submitted a minority report making clear their objections to these decisions, and to the settlement of naval questions by nations, without navies or even seacoast. This minority report was supported also by Great Britain, Chili, and Argentina, but was rejected by the full committee.
Population and War—(From Problems of Over-Population, by E. M. East, Professor at Harvard, in July Current History) “In the first decade of the twentieth century Germany was the danger spot of Europe. Her growth was too rapid. Today this possibility has been eliminated by the decreased birth rate of the new German Republic. Italy has taken her place. Tomorrow or the next day, Russia will replace Italy.”
GREAT BRITAIN
Anglo-Turkish Treaty.—On June 5, by signing a treaty with Great Britain, Turkey finally accepted a settlement of the Mosul dispute practically in accord with the decisions made by the League Council. The main terms of the treaty are: (1) That the “Brussels line” shall be accepted as the frontier between Irak and Turkey; (2) that Turkey shall receive ten per cent of the revenues from the oil fields in the Mosul region and also in other parts of Irak for a period of twenty-five years.
Press reports suggested that Turkey was induced to accept these terms partly because of possible dangers threatening from Italy and Greece, and partly because of the prospects offered of immediate revenue, in view of the approaching completion of the Mosul pipe line and the likelihood of increased oil yields.
British Assert Control in Egypt.—In spite of a parliamentary majority of 166 out of 215 as a result of the recent elections, the Wafd or Nationalist Party in Egypt was unable to form a ministry with its old leader, Zaghlul Pasha as Premier. Zaghlul refused to promise respect for the “four rights” of Great Britain in Egypt, namely, retention of the Sudan, British army of occupation to protect Suez, British protection against foreign aggression, and British protection of foreign citizens and interests in Egypt. Hence the British representative, Baron Ambrose Lloyd, forced him to withdraw in favor of the moderate leader, Adli Pasha.
Protest at Soviet Gift to British Labor.—In what turned out to be a mildly worded note, the British government early in June protested to the Soviet government against their allowing funds to go out of the country for the aid of British labor in an illegal general strike. The note did not contend that the Soviet government had actually sent the funds, but objected to the relaxation in favor of the strikers of the Soviet law against export of money.
In the British House of Commons there were violent attacks upon the Soviet government and agitation for breaking off relations, but Foreign Secretary Chamberlain stated that such action was not contemplated at present. The Russian money came from trade union sources; it was reported on June 10 that £30,000 more had been given, and also £10,000 from United States unions.
Trade with Russia.—According to Soviet figures, British trade with Russia has greatly increased since 1922. United States trade with Russia has also increased from $41,000,000 exports and $8,000,000 imports in 1924 to $68,000,000 exports and $12,600,000 imports in 1925.
GERMANY AND EASTERN EUROPE
Royal Property Confiscation Fails.—The national referendum in Germany on June 20 on the proposal to confiscate the property of former royal families resulted in the defeat of the proposal by abstention of its opponents from voting. About 14,500,000 votes were cast for the measure and only 600,000 against, but about 20,000,000 votes were necessary to constitute one-half the total electorate and make the decision valid. The confiscation was most strongly supported by the Socialist and city vote.
Much excitement was caused by publication prior to the election of a private letter from President von Hindenburg strongly condemning the measure as “an attack on legal rights and morals.”
Pilsudski’s Aims in Poland.—After refusing the office of President of Poland as a result of the election at the end of May, Marshal Pilsudski took for himself the post of Minister of War in the Bartel cabinet, carrying with it complete control of the Polish army and practically dictatorial powers. On June 23 the Diet was forced to adjourn until July, when it will be called upon to adopt reform measures approved by the Pilsudski regime. These will include reduction of the Diet from 555 to about 300 members, advance of the voting age to 24 as a thrust against the Communist “youth” movement, and another measure to penalize candidates who receive less than 1,000 votes in an election, and thus reduce the present unwieldy number of twenty-two parties.
Little Entente Conference Off.—A conference of the foreign ministers of Czechoslovakia, Jugo-slavia, and Rumania was to have taken place early in June in Jugo-slavia. The program included discussion of the increasing rivalry between France and Italy for dominant influence in the Little Entente, and also proposals for abolition of customs control between the countries, the long-standing problems arising from Hungarian monarchical tendencies, and the recent Russo-German treaty. The meeting, however, was postponed owing to a political crisis in Czechoslovakia which forced the return of Foreign Minister Benes.
FRANCE
Caillaux in Reorganized Ministry.—The Briand government fell on June 15 following the continued decline of the franc and the resignation of Finance Minister Peret. There was some talk of a coalition ministry; but after Herriot and Poincare had refused to serve under Briand, and after Herriot had failed to organize a ministry of his own, the veteran Briand again came into power as head of his tenth cabinet. This depended for its strength chiefly on the re-appointment of Caillaux as Minister of Finance. One of the first acts of the new government was to oust Robineau as President of the Bank of France, and there was some talk of efforts to secure modification of the debt agreement with the United States. However, on June 25 the Expert Finance Commission appointed by Peret reported in favor of ratifying the debt agreement as it is, as an essential first step toward stabilization of the franc and improvement of finances.
The new cabinet received a vote of confidence of 290 to 130, the Right not voting. The real test was expected on July 6, when M. Caillaux would outline his financial plans.
League Approves French Rule in Syria. New York Times, 18 June.
Geneva, June 17.—Approval of the French administration in Syria was voiced by the League of Nations Mandates Commission following a report today by Senator Henri de Jouvenel, the High Commissioner of the mandated territory. The endorsement of the commission is equivalent to a vote of confidence by the League in the work of de Jouvenel, and means that the question of French rule in Syria will not come up again before the League until October, when the Governmental report will be examined.
M. de Jouvenel replied in detail to the seven charges of the Syrian Nationalists against the French Administration. He defended the Syrian- Turkish Convention, the French action in Damascus, the French police work, the establishment of the Republic of Lebanon and the use of forces against the Djebel Druse tribe, and answered charges that people were executed without trial and of brutality to prisoners and civilians.
He said that the greatest opponent to the French administration in Syria was “Prince” Lotfallah, who, he said, was neither Syrian, Palestinian nor prince. If he wished to speak in the name of the Syrians he should start out by becoming one, said M. de Jouvenel.
CHINA
Leaders Meet at Peking.—Chang Tso-lin entered Peking on June 27, and was reported to have from 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the city as a body guard. He was met there on the next day by Marshal Wu Pei-fu.
The prospect that the forces of these leaders would be able to overcome the Kuominchun or National Army appeared by no means assured, since the latter had about 200,000 troops in the field well provided with food and munitions from Russia and quite capable of holding their own indefinitely in Northwest China. On the other hand, new leaders among his own forces threatened the control of Wu Pei-fu.