FROM APRIL 3 TO MAY 3
UNITED STATES
French and Jugo-Slav Debt Agreements.—A11 agreement for funding the French debt to the United States of about $4,000,000,000 was finally reached on April 29, after negotiations in which Ambassador Berenger offered increases in the initial and total payments to meet the demands of the United States Debt Commission. The agreement calls for a total payment of $6,847,104,000 in sixty-two years. The payments during the first ten years are $35,000,000 less than was offered by Mr. Caillaux, but the total is $627,000,000 greater.
No interest is charged during the first five years. After that the interest if averaged would amount to 1.58%. The present-day value under this arrangement reckoning interest at 4^% over sixty-two years, is about 50% of the principal, as compared with 26% for the Italian payments, and 78% for the British. It is believed that the agreement will be ratified in the U. S. Senate by a majority about the same as that given to the Italian accord. Both France and Jugo-Slavia are said to be seeking $100,000,000 loans in the United States.
The Jugo-Slav debt of about $63,000,000 was funded by an agreement on May 1 which provided for payments over sixty-two years amounting in present value to about 32% of the debt.
Senate Approves Debt Agreements.—During the latter part of April the U. S. Senate approved the debt agreements with Italy, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia. After considerable debate and opposition, the Italian agreement was passed by a vote of 54 to 33.
No U. S. Delegates to World Court Conference.—On April 19 Secretary of State Kellogg sent a note to the League of Nations in reply to the invitation to send delegates to a conference at Geneva on September 1 to consider the reservations made by the United States in its offer to participate in the World Court. The note stated that the United States would not send delegates to this conference, and would carry on direct exchange of notes with the member nations, although no objection was made to a conference among the member nations themselves.
“It would seem to be a matter of regret,” wrote Secertary Kellogg, “if the Council of the League should do anything to create the impression that there are substantial difficulties in the way of such direct communication as an exchange of notes. The Senate reservations are plain, and according to their terms they must be accepted by the exchange of notes between the United States and the forty-eight member nations before the United States can become a party and sign the proctocol.
New Tacna-Arica Proposals—In view of the increasing unlikelihood of a satisfactory solution of the Tacna-Arica dispute by a plebiscite, especially on account of the difficulties raised by both Chili and Peru, the U. S. Department of State on April 15 made a new set of proposals for a settlement, as follows:
The Secretary of State has the honor to suggest that in the interest of international peace and a cordial rapprochement between the parties they consider the advisability of a mutual and joint sacrifice whereby either:
- The territory of Tacna and Arica shall be constituted a neutralized state, either independent or under the protectorate of South American states, as may be agreed, or—
- The provinces of Tacna and Arica shall be transferred (upon an apportionment of equitable compensation, and appropriate economic arrangements, to be agreed upon) to a South American state not a party to these negotiations.
As neither party is willing to surrender the territory in question to the other, and as a proposal for the division of the territory between them has been rejected; the remaining opportunity for a solution of the long-standing controversy would appear to be found in one of the suggestions above made or in a modification thereof if such is deemed advisable.
It was later reported that both Chili and Peru felt keenly the desirability of a peaceful settlement, especially since the South American states have long supported the principle of arbitration of international difficulties, and that therefore there was a fair prospect that the proposal of a neutralized state might be adopted.
GENEVA MEETING ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT
French Policies Stated.—The American delegates to the preliminary conference on limitation of armament set to meet at Geneva on May 17 sailed from the United States late in April. The delegation was headed by Hugh Gibson, U. S. Minister to Switzerland, with Major General Dennis E. Nolan as chief army adviser, and Rear Admiral Hilary P. Jones, Rear Admiral Andrew T. Long, and Captain Adolphus Andrews as naval advisers.
The French policies to be advocated at Geneva were stated as follows:
(From Baltimore Sun of May 2).—The French thesis is two-fold. First, it maintains that no discussion of disarmament can be allowed to affect the Treaty of Versailles. 'It contends that Germany’s disarmament after defeat is an especial case to which the armament of other nations cannot be assimilated and that two ideas of disarmament must be closely defined.
The definition that France suggests is certainly ingenious. It is based upon three factors: First, security; second, indistinguishability and solidarity of all sorts of armament, naval, military, and aerial, and, third, war potentiality. They are systematically expounded as follows:
The disarmament of any nation must be in proportion to its security or, in other words, by its geographical position. A country whose security is threatened either by its disadvantageous geographical position or by a powerful and turbulent neighbor ought not to be disarmed in the same measure as a country that enjoys good natural frontiers or is surrounded by weak pacific nations.
All kinds of armaments, whether land, sea or air, must be taken equally into account in appreciating the armament of any country. This formula speaks for itself. If Great Britain or America asks why France has so large an army France will retort “Why have you so large a fleet.”
In estimating the measure of any country’s armament account must be taken not only of the number of troops or the amount of war material it possesses, but also its war potentiality; that is to say, the total of all forces military, economic, industrial, that it is capable of bringing into play. This formula means that the smaller the proportion of its population engaged in industry, the smaller its resources in munition making and, therefore the larger its army should be. Thus France would be allowed to maintain a larger army than any of the other great countries like America, Great Britain, and Germany.
GREAT BRITAIN
Coal Strike Threatened.—Complete paralysis of British industry was threatened by a miners’ strike set for May 3. The strike would affect about a million miners, backed up by some 200 unions and 5,000,000 workers in other fields.
On April 30 the government issued a proclamation declaring a “state of emergency, which by the Act of 1920 gave the authorities power to use all state resources to protect the nation's vital interests. Troops were sent to coal areas, and the government prepared to take over transportation and supply services and control of coal.
From Baltimore Sun, May 2:
Although the nationalization of mines is the avowed aim of the miners and also the Labor Party, this is not the present issue. The miners have made no demands, but have stood on the defensive with the motto phrased by their secretary. Not a penny off wages, not a minute on working hours.” It was their refusal to budge from this stand that led Premier Baldwin to declare that the government was unwilling to continue the subsidy which it has been paying since last August to prevent a coal strike, and which today has cost the taxpayers £23,000,000.
. The owners demanded general and sweeping reductions in wages, amount- mg in some cases to 20 per cent and bringing the wages of some men with families down to $5 a week. The alternative was for the men to accept an increase in the working day from seven to eight hours, and if this were agreed to the owners said they would keep the wages at their present level.
FRANCE
French Finance Bill Passed.—The new French Finance Minister Raoul Peret succeeded early in April in winning the approval of the French Chamber for his finance measure providing for the balancing of the budget and a total tax increase of about four billion francs. The financial problem had been before the Chamber since last July and had caused the resignation of five finance ministers and the fall of Painleve’s ministry and Briand’s first cabinet. About 58 per cent of the reserves provided will be required for payments in the French foreign and domestic debt. The bill passed the Senate on April 29.
In April also the campaign was begun to wipe out the French debt by voluntary contributions, and large contributions were made by financial and political leaders. The committee for this purpose was headed by Marshal Joffre.
Peace Conference With Riffs.—During the last two weeks of April peace negotiations were held at Oujda, in Morocco, between representatives of France and Spain acting together, and the Riff leader Abd el-Krim. Delay arose over the Franco-Spanish demand for immediate release of prisoners and the immediate advance of French and Spanish troops into territory held by the Riffs. The French and Spanish troops, however, advanced while the negotiations were going on.
The peace terms called for recognition by the Riffs of the sovereignty of the Moroccan ruler, and for the exile of Abd el-Krim to France under a pension from the French government. The Riffs were given until May 6 to accept the terms offered, but the prospects of acceptance appeared unlikely.
Franco-Russian Debt Negotiations Fail.—After two months of fruitless discussion, Franco-Russian debt negotiations in Paris were brought to an end on April 24. Russia would make no offer for settlement of the debt to France, amounting to about 32 billion paper francs, unless France offered immediate further loans.
GERMANY
Russo-German Treaty.—The text of the recently negotiated treaty of amity between Germany and Soviet Russia was made public on April 27, and copies were sent by Germany to other European powers. The treaty is in brief a five-year agreement giving mutual assurance of neutrality in case either nation is attacked by another power or coalition of powers. The provisions are as follows:
Article 1—The basis of relations between Germany and the Soviet Union remains the Treaty of Rapallo. The German Government and Government of the Soviet Union will remain in friendly contact with one another in order to insure mutual understanding in all questions .of a political and economic nature affecting their two countries.
Article 2—Should one of the contracting parties, despite its peaceful demeanor, be attacked by a third power or by several other powers, the other contracting party shall preserve neutrality throughout the entire duration of the conflict.
Article 3—Should a coalition among other powers in connection with a conflict such as is foreseen in Article 2, or at a time when neither of the contracting parties is engaged in warlike activities, be organized for the purpose of imposing an economic boycott against one of the contracting parties the other contracting party will not participate in such coalition.
Article 4—This treaty shall be ratified and ratification proclamations shall be exchanged in Berlin. The treaty thereupon goes into effect and is valid for a period of five years. The two contracting parties will reach an understanding over the further status of their political relations before the termination of this period.
An appendix to the treaty consists of a letter from Foreign Minister Stresemann to M. Krestinski and the Russian Ambassador’s reply. It is declared categorically that these communications have equal force with the treaty proper.
Although the treaty is evidently the result of Russia’s efforts to protect herself in view of Germany’s alignment with the Western powers at Locarno and in the League, the letter of Foreign Minister Stresemann accompanying the treaty attempts to show that Germany’s pledges in the treaty will not run counter to her obligations as a League member. Dr. Stresemann states in his letter that Germany as a League member “would oppose any policy directed solely against the Soviet Union”; and that punitive undertakings against the Soviet Union under Articles 16 and 17 of the League Covenant “could be contemplated only if the Soviet Union started an aggressive war,” and could be decided upon “with binding effect for Germany only with Germany’s consent.”
The communications accompanying the treaty and having equal force with it, provide for the future negotiation of an agreement to settle disputes between the two nations by arbitration.
ITALY AND SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
Attempt to Assassinate Mussolini.—Premier Mussolini narrowly escaped death on April 7 when a demented woman—Violet Gibson, sister of Lord Ashbourne of Ireland—fired several shots at him as he was being cheered by a street crowd. One bullet slightly wounded the Premier’s nose.
Italian Premier’s Voyage to Tripoli.—On April 8-17 Premier Mussolini voyaged to Libya, the Italian territory in Tripoli, on a dreadnaught, and was received with honors on African soil. “My voyage to Libya,” declared the dictator, “contains no menace. In spite of the pageant presented by our warships, my voyage is merely a matter of prestige. We wish to concentrate our attention on our colonies, to make them better known, better appreciated, and better developed. But I refer only to the colonies we possess.”
In the colony he spoke as follows:
My voyage must not be interpreted as a mere administrative act, but as it is—an affirmation of the power of the Italian people, a manifestation of the force which originates in Rome and which extends from Rome to a glorious and triumphal littoral.
Fascist Italian Tripoli! You represent here Italy which is daily more prosperous and powerful. Rome carries the beacon lamp of strength to the shores of the African sea. No one can stop our inexorable will.
You understand me more for what I have not said than for what I have said. Only this language is possible in Fascist style.
British Discount Italo-Turk Scare.—
The alarm and uneasiness reported in Turkey over Premier Mussolini’s tour of Tripoli and over rumors that an Italian-Greek compact had been drawn up, are not shared by officials of the British Government.
All responsible comment regarding Italian affairs is usually accompanied by reservations such as, “It must be remembered that Mussolini is an incalculable quantity.”
Nevertheless, officials say, it is impossible for the British to believe that any Mediterranean power, in giving expression to a new spirit of nationalism, would run the risk of action likely to precipitate serious trouble.
The prompt denial by the Greek Foreign Minister of the existence of an Italian-Greek compact against Turkey is accepted in London and is believed to have had a quieting effect in the Near East. The general view here is that danger of war is not great at present, if only because of the financial and economic exhaustion of the countries likely to become involved.
There is a keen understanding among British officials of the peculiar character of public opinion in Southern and Eastern European countries, a public opinion which is vastly different from that of the United States or Great Britain; but it is hoped here that Turkey, as well as Italy and Greece, will reduce any sword-rattling to the absolute minimum necessary to maintain confidence of the respective peoples in their existing regimes.
Turkey’s new levy of army conscripts had been regarded in various quarters as giving substance to recent rumors of contemplated Italian or Italo-Greek aggression at Turkey’s expense.
It is estimated that the men called to the Turkish colors yesterday, added to those already summoned in connection with the Kurdish trouble and the Irak dispute with Great Britain, will bring the Turkish army to about double its normal peace strength of about 120,000 officers and men.
Premier Mussolini’s recent speeches and his reference in February to “Italy’s Napoleonic year” is being interpreted, not only in Turkey, as seriously aggressive and as suggesting an intention to achieve colonial expansion in Anatolia, which is declared to be his aim. .
Recently London newspapers have printed rumors of an alleged design by Mussolini to enlist the support of Greece for his imperial ambitions. These rumors alleged that Greece, through long credit contracts with Italy, would purchase rifles, tanks and other munitions which could be used against Turkey in Thrace while Mussolini was taking action in Asia Minor.
Athens, April 19 (AP).—Foreign Minister Rouplos today denied the report of’the existence of an agreement between Italy and Greece against Turkey.
Constantinople, April 19 (AP).—The newspapers describe the situation arising over possible Italian aggression against Turkey as much more reassuring. In their opinion it is becoming evident that the Italian objectives are Somaliland and Abyssinia rather than Anatolia. The alarm of the past few days, therefore, is slowly subsiding.
New Rulers in Greece and Persia.—On April 18 General Pangalos took oath of office as President of Greece. He declared that on the next day he would relinquish the dictatorial powers assumed in January and govern by constitutional methods. Gen. Pangalos had had himself elected president two weeks previously by a vote in which there were no opposition candidates.
In Persia on April 25 the new ruler, Reza Khan Phelevi, crowned himself as shah in the presence of his ministers, and declared a week of celebrations.
Polish Premier Visits Austria. From N. Y. Times, April 16.
Vienna, April 15.—Count Skrzynski, the Polish Premier, arrived here this morning on a two days’ official visit, during which he will sign a new arbitration treaty with Austria and open negotiations for improving trade relations.
These treaties, however, seem convenient excuses for, rather than the real objects of the political negotiations now going on in the Ballhousplatz, where Count Skrzynski, as an official of the old Empire, got his first training in diplomacy. The real objects why Poland is cultivating the friendship of Little Austria, 7 tie New York Times correspondent learns from well informed Polish and Austrian sources, are double.
Through closer relations with Austria, Poland hopes to have Vienna become the intermediary between Warsaw and Berlin in settling the differences between them. By thus showing the Austrians that their position, historically and geographically, allows them as an independent state to continue to play an important influential and political role in Central Europe, Poland hopes to discourage the anschluss movement which would make Vienna merely another provincial German capital.
The impulse behind Count Skrzyski’s visit in both regards, but especially in the latter, comes, the Poles unofficially admit, directly from Dr. Benes, the Czechoslovak foreign minister, and behind him from France. Both seem to realize that mere treaty prohibitions are insufficient to prevent Anschluss in the long run, and that Austria, to conserve her independence, must have both a reason for wanting to conserve it and the possibility of doing so more easily.
Poland’s impasse with Germany helps to provide a reason.
FAR EAST
Peking Evacuated by Feng’s Forces.—During the first part of April Peking was evacuated by its defending forces in the face of advance and bombardment by the troops of Chang Tso-lin from Manchuria and also the armies of Wu Pei-fu marching northward. Prior to evacuation the Feng forces sought to come to an understanding with General Wu, and with this in view forced the resignation of President Tuan Chi Jui and set free his predecessor, Tsao Kun. Their efforts, however, were a failure. In the absence of recognized authority, a committee of ten Chinese, including six former premiers, attempted to preserve order in the city. Having defeated the Feng forces, it remained to be seen whether Wu and Chang could come to an amicable understanding.