FROM 3 MARCH TO 3 APRIL
GERMANY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Strife for Council Seats Delays German Entry.—The special session of the League of Nations Assembly met at Geneva on March 8 and ended on March 17, without having accomplished the purpose for which it was convened, that of admitting Germany to the League. With the consent of Germany it was decided that the question of Germany’s admission should be postponed until the regular session of the assembly in September.
Germany was supported by Sweden and other northern nations, as well as by public and parliamentary opinion in England, in her stand that she should be given a permanent seat on the League Council, upon her admission to the League, without at the same time increasing the council by the addition of other members. France and other nations, however, favored a permanent seat for Poland, who advanced her claims at this time. Spain also presented her claims, and Brazil, the only American power represented by a temporary seat in the Council, declared that she would oppose the admission of Germany unless a permanent seat were given to her also.
Various compromise proposals were made, as that Poland should be given a temporary seat on the Council, and that the claims of Spain and Brazil should be postponed until September. Brazil’s position, however, was made stiffer by political conditions at home, and in spite of the fact that other American nations objected to her attitude, she remained obdurate.
It was believed that if England had from the beginning taken a clear stand against the admission of Poland as a counterweight to Germany, no difficulties would have arisen; and Sir Austen Chamberlain was even accused of secret promises to Poland and France at the time of the Locarno agreements. Later, however, Sir Austen declared in Parliament that his instructions from London were: (1) to oppose the increase of the council by other powers than Germany, (2) to favor only a temporary seat for Poland.
After the Assembly had adjourned a special committee was appointed to consider changing some of the present rules of the Council, and this committee may recommend increasing the seats in the Council and abolishing the rules requiring a unanimous vote.
From a dispatch by Edwin L. James in The New York Times, March 17:
Without close knowledge of the intertwining interests which got involved at Geneva it is rather difficult to understand exactly what happened. Business was conducted in great secret and mostly in hotel rooms. It should be recalled that the Locarno compacts establishing the Rhineland treaty between France and Germany and arbitration compacts between Germany and Poland and Germany and Czecho-slovakia were framed on the basis that they came into existence when Germany entered the League of Nations. This provision was inserted on the initiative of the Allies.
At Locarno M. Briand and Sir Austen Chamberlain, it seems now established, promised Poland, in order to put her in a good position vis-a-vis Germany, to obtain for her a permanent seat on the League Council. However, this promise was not made public at the time. The Germans say they were never told of it and no proof has been produced that they had been.
The Locarno treaties were signed in London and in due time Germany made her application to the League for membership in the Assembly and for the place on the Council which had been promised her. Then, slowly, the Polish demand was brought to the front. Paris espoused it and Sir Austen Chamberlain showed himself favorable. Seeing reorganization of the Council in sight, Spain revived her demand of three years ago for a permanent place on the Council instead of a non-permanent place, thereby seeking to be classed as a great power. Brazil came forward with her plan for a permanent seat as the representative of South America. Sweden took the stand that there should be no other entries to the Council except Germany.
That was the situation when the meeting here started on March 7. Immediately the Germans took the stand that they had agreed to enter the Council as it stood at the time they consented to enter the League, that to admit another nation for the purpose of balancing their vote was an exhibition of bad faith and that if it was done Germany would withdraw her application.
The French, backed by the English, took the position that Germany had asked to enter the League without conditions and that up to the moment Germany was seated on the Council that body was free to do as it saw fit, including providing a new permanent seat.
Germany retorted that the Council could go ahead and Germany would go home.
Long days of weary wrangling brought the result that Dr. Luther and Dr. Stresemann agreed to a compromise by which Poland would replace Czechoslovakia and thus enter the League when Germany did, This would have given the French the diplomatic victory of getting Poland on the Council and the Germans the diplomatic victory of having prevented the enlargement of the Council in order to balance her vote, since the vote of Warsaw would have given France no more strength in the Council than the vote of Prague.
This arrangement, as I have explained, fell through because of the sudden change of attitude of Brazil and Spain, who four days ago had agreed to postpone their demands until September.
While there is no proof, there is a consensus of opinion at Geneva that the Italians took a hand in the affair. Certainly the delegates of Rome have encouraged Spain in her demand for a place, and it is entirely likely that they egged on Brazil. While it seems exaggerated to speak about Mussolini's revenge for Corfu, there seems little doubt that he has had a hand in making this mess. It would not be difficult for him, for he loves neither the League of Nations nor Germany.
Government Leaders Upheld.—Following the failure at Geneva, the conduct of the German representatives was upheld in the Reichstag by a vote of 249 to 141. In the English House of Commons a motion made by Mr. Lloyd George to reduce the pay of Sir Austen Chamberlain as Foreign Secretary (an indirect vote of censure) was defeated by 325 to 136. The Briand Ministry also continued its precarious tenure in France.
Arms Conference on May 18.—Before adjournment at Geneva the League Council decided that there should be no postponement of session of the preliminary commission of the Disarmament Conference, but that it should be held, as previously determined, on May 18. It was stated by the government representative in the House of Commons that Viscount Cecil, the English delegate, would go to the Conference with definite disarmament proposals. It was pointed out, however, that proposals for reduction of land forces would come more properly from a power strong on land.
Conference on U. S. World Court Reservations.—The League Council on March 18 sent the United States an invitation to appoint delegates 'to a conference at Geneva on Sept. 1, at which all nations members of the Court would be represented, to consider the reservations attached to the application of the United States for membership in the Court of International Justice. Upon receipt of the invitation the United States Department of State indicated that this country would not send representatives to the conference, since the reservations spoke for themselves, and it was for the other member states to decide whether the United States should enter on this basis.
FRANCE
Briand Cabinet Reorganized.—On March 6, on the very eve of Premier Briand’s departure for Geneva to attend the sessions of the League Council and Assembly, the Briand Cabinet was forced to resign as a result of a vote in the Chamber rejecting one of the clauses of the government’s tax bill. After a hurried visit to Geneva, Briand returned to Paris, and on March 9, succeeded in reorganizing his cabinet with Raoul Peret as new Finance Minister.
The failure of the French Parliament to enact a finance law brings us to this question: Has parliamentary government (government of the people through parliaments or congresses) broken down in France as it has in Italy, Spain, and Greece? Dictators now rule in the last three countries—Mussolini in Italy, General Primo de Rivera in Spain, and General Pangalos in Greece. Must France resort to a dictator to solve her financial troubles?
Premier Briand made the threat to the French Parliament not long ago that France would be placed under a dictator unless that body passed the finance bill. After Briand resigned it was rumored that France might be Placed under a military dictatorship with Marshal Foch as Dictator. How- over, it is more likely that the French Parliament will be given at least one more chance to enact an adequate finance law.—Current Events, March 21-26.
ITALY AND THE BALKANS
Italian Naval Expansion.—The Literary Digest of March 6 quotes the Westminster Gazette as follows regarding Mussolini’s naval policy and ambitions for territorial expansion:
The Westminster Gazette reminds us that Mussolini finds himself, unlike any of his predecessors, with a balanced budget. He has embarked on a bold naval policy, we are told, to which no legitimate criticism can be offered in view of the vulnerability of Italy from the sea, and we read further: “In the last year there has been much talk of establishing a naval base in Sicily, and a thorough investigation has been held in search of a suitable base. Now we hear that an establishment is contemplated at the Island of Rhodes, in the Ægean.
“The Italian never disguises the fact that he considers himself entitled to Malta, and for years has carried on an infiltrative policy in that island, despite his realization that nothing would ever allow us to relinquish our key position in the Mediterranean. He looks with envious eyes on Tunisia. It is French in government but largely Italian in enterprise. The greater part of the agriculture is performed by Sicilians, its most flourishing syndicates employ Italian labor.
“Again, Italy regards the Adriatic as her sea, and the Adriatic coast as her territory if she had her rights. Did not Venice once hold it in fee? When Mussolini made his melodramatic seizure of Corfu, the old dream of the Doges came to life again. In talking of an empire, therefore, Mussolini knows he has material with which to fire the Italian mind. The danger is that no fire spreads so rapidly as that started to satisfy national ambition.”
A special correspondent of this London daily declares that from the strategic point of view the Island of Rhodes is “an ideal jumping-off place for any Italian adventure in Asia Minor.” Italy is the strongest naval power in the eastern Mediterranean, he remarks, adding that the Turkish Navy is practically non-existent, the Greek Navy is not yet in a condition of rivalry, while the Jugo-Slav Navy is in its infancy. Transports from Brindisi or from the Italian colonies in North Africa could be easily brought to Rhodes, according to this writer, who calls attention to the fact that it would be “an advance base at the very gates of Anatolia,” and he goes on to say: “Italy feels the urge of three forces; her political ambitions, her need for economic expansion, and the pressure of her excess population. The door is closed to the first and third on the eastern shores of the Adriatic; the practical closure of the doors of the United States to Italian immigrants has made the problem still more acute. The second is the failure to make the headway which it was hoped would result from the cession of the greater part of the Port of Fiume.
“Italy desires to play the role in the Balkans and the Near East once played by Austria-Hungary. But there is her powerful Jugo-Slav neighbor to consider. The Pact of Rome gave the port of Fiume to Italy, and the surrounding parts of Jugo-Slavia, and thus implied a policy of cooperation . in the Balkan sphere with Jugo-Slavia. It was tacitly understood that in return for the Adriatic settlement Italy would not interfere with Jugo- Slav policy in the neighborhood of the Ægean. The Pact of Rome is often hailed as a triumph for Signor Mussolini. It was also a triumph for the pacific but realistic policy of Dr. Nintchitch, the present Jugo-Slav Foreign Minister.
The Pact of Rome inaugurated the era of Italo-Jugo-Slav friendship, but it also closed the Adriatic door to Italian expansionist aims in a northeasterly direction. There remains Africa; but the Jarabub agreement with Egypt marks the limits of Italy’s possibilities in that direction. Only Asia Minor is left.
“It is true that Italian policy has of recent years been openly friendly to Turkey. Italian money and ammunition helped Mustafa Kemal to turn the Greeks out of Anatolia. But the Greek complication now no longer exists. Likewise Britain and France are no longer at loggerheads over the Turkish question. The diplomatic field would seem to be clear for a change in the Turkish policy hitherto pursued by the Palazzo Chigi.”
TURKEY AND NEAR EAST
Franco-Turkish Accord.—(From April Current History.)—An interesting diplomatic maneuver was disclosed on February 21 when h became known that Senator Henri de Jouvenal, French High Commissioner for Syria, had concluded an accord with Turkey, whereby each country bound itself to a benevolent neutrality in the event of either being at war, and also settled various controversies relating to the frontier between Turkey and Syria and to the use of the Bagdad railway. It had been asserted that such an accord would be a negation of the obligations of France to enforce the sanctions of Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations against any nation incurring such penalties. It was likewise asserted that this accord was not to be considered as an agreement between France and Turkey, but rather as an adjustment between Turkey and Syria which, as a Mandatory State, would have to refer such agreements back to the League of Nations.
Ibn Saud, Ruler of Arabia.—The chief power in Arabia today is Ibn Saud, leader of the powerful Wahabi element among the Moslems and ruler of central Arabia. Having captured Mecca and forced the abdication of Hussein, King of the Hedjaz, Ibn Saud has since forced Hussein’s son Ali to evacuate Jiddah, the port of Mecca. Ibn Saud is now practically master of Arabia. He is on friendly terms with the British in Iraq, who seek only to prevent efforts on his part to oust the sons of Hussein, Faisal, and Abdullah, from the thrones of Iraq and Transjordania. The conference for the election of a new caliph of Islam will be held under his auspices in Arabia this year, and as an independent sovereign and master of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina, he is the most powerful claimant for this position of religious leader of the Moslem world.
FAR EAST
Blockade of Pei-ho.—In March the Kuominchun (National Armies) under Feng Yu-hsiang, engaged in defending Tientsin against the attacks of Chang Tso-lin, mounted some artillery in the old Taku fort at the mouth of the Pei River leading to Tientsin, mined the river with “large dark objects” (reported later to be dummy mines), and proceeded to fire on neutral shipping attempting to enter the river. On March 19 they fired on two Japanese destroyers, killing an officer and wounding nine men. The fire was not returned. Subsequently the several powers which were parties to the Protocol of 1901, providing for an open waterway to Tientsin and Peking, called upon the Chinese government to remove the mines and lift the blockade under threat of joint naval action. Chinese observers believed that the action of the Japanese destroyers was intended to support the attacking forces under Chang Tso-lin.
Fall of Tientsin.—On March 22 the city of Tientsin was evacuated by the Feng forces, which retreated north and without attempting to protect Peking. At the time of Chang Tso-lin’s recapture of Tientsin, the forces of Wu-Pei-fu were reported to have crossed the Yellow River and to be pressing northward driving the National Army before them.
Japanese Support of Chang Tso-lin.—According to a report of Thomas F. Millard, published in the New York Times of January 14, the downfall of the rebellion against Chang Tso-lin in Manchuria last December came largely through the intervention of Japan. At the critical moment in the rebellion, according to this report, Japanese police protected Chang’s residence in Mukden, Japanese troops from Port Arthur were brought to Mukden and joined Chang’s forces, and Chang’s son was provided with funds to purchase the loyalty- of Chang’s leaders at Tientsin. This support brought about the collapse of the rebellion and the death of the rebel leader Kuo.
Chinese Trade.—According to the February Living Age tariff autonomy in China will favor American trade. Japan and the United States will be affected differently by Chinese tariff autonomy. For Japan exports to China large quantities of cotton-piece-goods and manufactures of a similar character which the Chinese can very well make in their own country; while the United States, which has lost most of its piece-goods trade to Japan, may expect an even greater demand than at present for machinery, iron and steel products, automobiles, and standardized metal-wares, in the production of which there is little likelihood that Japan can compete with us. In other words, the industrialization of China promises to increase the market for development goods which America is now supplying, while it will decrease the market for consumption goods, which are more largely produced by Japan and Europe.
Increase of Population of Australia.—According to a report in the Living Age for February, the population of Australia has passed the six million mark, and has increased one-sixth in the last eight years. Two- thirds of this increase is due to excess of births over deaths, and one-third to immigration, which comes mostly from the British Isles, though there is a considerable influx of Italians, especially into the sugar cane country.
LATIN AMERICA
Tacna-Arica Plebiscite.—(From Baltimore Sun, March 28.)—Arica, Chile, March 27.—Paradoxical conditions prevail here with regard to the Plebiscite question, which it was believed had finally been referred to Washington.
The problem confronting the plebiscitary commission now is whether to suspend activities here pending the outcome of negotiations for a direct settlement between Chile and Peru, which would conform to the wishes of both the United States, as arbiter, and Peru, or to go on with the plebiscite Preliminaries, as demanded by Chile.
Meanwhile the prospective voters of Tacna and Arica, the disputed provinces, proceeded to register today, but with only American and Chilean registration board members present. The Peruvian members had been ordered by their country’s representative to abstain from participation in the registration activities.
On the other hand, a meeting of the Plebiscite Commission has been called for tomorrow, at which time it will be decided just what will be done here while Chile and Peru try to effect a direct settlement in Washington.
Mexican Land Regulations Acceptable.—The regulations which, according to Mexican practice, must be published to give effect to the new Mexican oil and land laws, were made public at the close of March and forwarded to the United States. After careful study, the American State Department reached the conclusion that these regulations offer a satisfactory solution of the controversy between the United States and Mexico.
Article 18 of the regulations definitely declares that the law shall not be applied retroactively.