FROM 3 SEPTEMBER TO 3 OCTOBER
GERMANY ENTERS LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Germany Admitted to League and Council.—As a result of careful preparation by the major powers, and after the resignation from the League of Brazil and Spain, the two states who prevented its accomplishment last spring, the admission of Germany to the League of Nations and to a seat on the League Council was carried through at the September Session of the League Assembly without manifest opposition. The Assembly on September 8 voted unanimously in favor of Germany’s admission, and on September 10 Dr. Stresemann, the German Foreign Minister, took his seat in the Assembly. In a dramatic scene, Foreign Minister Briand of France made the first speech of welcome.
Locarno Treaties Ratified.—The admission of Germany to the League was the last essential preliminary to the ratification of the five Locarno treaties. These consist of the four treaties of arbitration between Germany and her neighbors, France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and the Rhineland Treaty, creating a neutral zone along the Rhine, and guaranteed by Great Britain and Italy. These were ratified on September 14.
Later, on September 17, Foreign Ministers Briand and Stresemann conferred privately and at length at Thoira, just across the French frontier from Geneva. It was reported that, while their conference covered the whole range of Franco-German interests, it had to do especially with the plan of hastening French evacuation of the Rhineland in exchange for the marketing of German railroad and industrial bonds, now held at Berlin under the Dawes Plan, as a means of providing France with funds.
Work of League Assembly.—The seventh session of the League of Nations Assembly opened on September 6 and closed on September 25. Foreign Minister Nintchitch of Jugoslavia was elected president. Aside from its chief accomplishment, the admission of Germany, the Assembly as one of its last acts adopted a slavery convention signed at once by twenty governments in eluding Portugal and Abyssinia, whom it most affected. The convention provides for the prevention of slave trade and the abolition of slavery in all forms, together with a pledge not to resort to forced labor save under exceptional circumstances when voluntary labor is unavailable.
It was announced on September 25 that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Argentine Chamber had approved the proposal of the president that Argentina re-enter the League.
Reorganization of Council.—The League Assembly at its September session adopted the measures proposed by its special committee for the reorganization of the League Council. The admission of Germany increased the permanent members of the Council from four to five. To counterbalance this increase of seats for the great powers, the six non-permanent seats were increased to nine, and three of these were made semi-permanent, so that the nations holding them could be re-elected. Since Brazil and Spain for whom two of these semi-permanent seats were planned, had in the meantime signified their intention to drop out of the League, only one nation, Poland, was given a seat of this kind. The other non-permanent members elected were: Chili and Rumania (for three years); Colombia, Holland, and China (for two years); Czechoslovakia, Belgium, and Salvador (for one year).
The Spanish representative absented himself from the League Council session on September 2, and a note from the Spanish government subsequently signified the intention of Spain to withdraw from the League because she was not granted a permanent seat. The note held that insufficient respect had been shown to Spain as the mother country of twenty Spanish-speaking nations, and that the sacrifices involved in withdrawal were preferable to remaining in the League.
WORK TOWARDS ARMS CONFERENCE
No Conference Likely Within Year.—The military, naval, and aerial sub-committees of the Preparatory Commission for the Conference on Limitation of Armament suspended work from September 9 to 27. It was decided that their work had not progressed sufficiently to permit the League Assembly to set a date for a conference prior to its next session a year hence. The sub-committees, however, were to continue their labors and report at a second meeting of the full Preparatory Commission next March or April.
In spite of the slight progress made by the Preparatory Commission, there was strong sentiment among the smaller states at the Assembly in favor of setting a date for a conference within a year; and there was some talk of the possibility of a conference next spring, the idea being that nations might at least be induced to limit their appropriations so as to keep armaments at approximately their present strength. When the question came before the Assembly on September 24, a resolution was adopted that a conference be convoked before next September unless material difficulties presented, and M. Paul Boncour for France and Lord Robert Cecil for Great Britain pledged their countries to work for the conference in all earnestness warning, however, that it would be fatal to call a conference without complete arrangements that would insure success.
Difficulties of Disarmament (By E. L. James in N. Y. Times, 10 Sept.).—The American delegates have learned one thing which Washington might profit by realizing to a greater degree than hitherto it has seemed to recognize—namely, that disarmament on the continent of Europe is essentially a political problem and Washington does not loom as the best place to settle Europe’s political troubles.
There are two big factors which block disarmament in Europe. One is Russia and the other is the unwillingness, or unreadiness, of France and her allies to reduce radically their military forces until they have what they regard as satisfactory security. If the French expect to get that security from the Locarno Treaty, the records of the experts’ meeting indicate no official recognition of that expectation.
In other words, Europe does not wish to adopt any wide limitation program at this time and no one will deny that the work of the experts’ committees has been more marked by efforts to prevent disarmament than by efforts to achieve it.
In the minds of all the delegates here, including the Americans, there is no good reason to believe that Europe would disarm any more quickly in Washington than in Geneva. There is a widespread opinion that a general disarmament conference called in Washington would be doomed in advance to lamentable failure.
The reports of the American generals should form interesting reading in Washington, for it will certainly bring home new ideas on disarmament. For example, the reports will show that yesterday the experts’ committee adopted a decision which, followed to its logical conclusion, makes the United States the most militaristic nation in the world.
American Proposals Adopted.—When the military sub-committee met again on September 27, the head of the United States delegation, Mr. Hugh Gibson, made a strong though diplomatically phrased criticism of the tendency of the committee to judge technical questions on their political and economic rather than purely military aspects (i. e., to attempt to judge each question on the basis of the advantage to the nation represented), and also to limit reports to the opinion favored by the majority. He offered a resolution, which was supported by the British representative and adopted after slight revision, to the effect that the subcommittee should consider only the technical aspects of questions presented, leaving the political and economic aspects to be considered by the Preparatory Commission as a whole. Furthermore, reports were to be so made as to include divergent minority opinions with the arguments therefor and the names of delegations favoring them.
On September 27 Mr. Gibson outlined United States policies as follows:
“My government has consistently been hopeful that our deliberations may result in some concrete basis for accomplishment in the reduction and limitation of armaments. Its hopes for success of our work has been repeatedly expressed by the President and Secretary of State—the latter, it will be recalled, made an important public address on this subject as recently as August 18 in which he reaffirmed our earnest hopes for practical achievement.
“You will recall that during the first plenary session I outlined the general views of the American Government in regard to the problems before the Preparatory Commission. The discussions of our commission and its sub-commission since that time have served to confirm my government in the views I then expressed on its behalf, namely:
“First—That land armaments were more susceptible of limitation by regional agreements.
“Second—That since the Washington naval treaty did not cover all classes of vessels further steps might well be taken to limit competitive building of types of vessels not so covered.
“Third—That success in limitation of armaments is to be achieved by isolation of as many concrete problems as possible and treatment of these in a direct and practical way without waiting for details of a set of abstract principles applicable to all armament problems.
“The American delegation has constantly kept in mind the practical objective for which all are working; namely, actual agreements for limitation of armaments. It has endeavored to face realities and refrain from an exclusively ideal scheme for universal disarmament which existing conditions throughout the world would appear to make most remote in any practical sense. Thus the American delegation has taken the position that limitation to be practicable should be directed toward armaments which are in existence and therefore tangible and limitable.
“The American delegation has consistently discouraged any effort to calculate the potential, economic, financial and industrial resources of one country as against those of another, since it has felt that such elements are not susceptible of limitation and fall outside any practical definition of armaments.
“In regard to limitation of naval armaments the American delegation has attempted to point out that the standard of tonnage by classes—a practical method of comparison and limitation of naval forces which has clearly demonstrated since its acceptance in the Washington treaty its utility and convenience as a standard —should be considered in any effort actually to bring about limitation of navies.
“Furthermore, the American delegation has opposed propositions to establish supervision and control of national armaments by an international agency, since it felt that any limitation agreements must rest primarily upon international good faith and respect for treaties.
UNITED STATES AND WORLD COURT
United States Reservations Discussed.—The Conference of Signatories of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, assembled on September 2 at Geneva to consider the United States reservations, discussed these at length, accepted them all “in principle,” and then appointed a committee of fourteen representatives to prepare in detail a formula of acceptance.
Committee Formula Approved.—The formula prepared by the committee of fourteen was approved unanimously by the conference on September 23. This formula, to be used by nations in making replies to the United States, was a document of considerable length. In effect it showed eagerness to facilitate the entry of the United States into the World Court and to put that nation on equal terms with major powers in the League. The first four reservations were accepted without qualification. However, it was proposed, in connection with the fourth reservation, that just as the United States reserved the right to withdraw from the League- and to give its own interpretation of reservations, so the signatory powers, “acting together and by a two-thirds majority,” should have a right to withdraw their consent to the reservations.
The fifth reservation was the chief stumbling block. This provides that “the Court shall not .... without the consent of the United States entertain any request for an advisory opinion touching any dispute in which the United States has or claims an interest.” It was pointed out by the Canadian delegate that observance of this resolution would involve endless delay, since before rendering any advisory opinion the court would have to refer to the U. S. Government and Senate to see whether an interest was claimed. It was further questioned whether any one state in the League Council had similar power to veto a request for an opinion. The formula adopted by the committee referred to recent action taken by the Court and expressed the opinion that these changes, and the precedents already established by the Court in disputes involving non-members of the League, would be satisfactory to the United States.
In this country the belief was expressed that entirely unqualified acceptance of the reservations would be necessary to secure American adhesion, and that the formula proposed would not be satisfactory.
FRANCE AND GERMANY
Further Evacuation of Rhineland.—Apparently in accordance with the Franco-German rapprochement at Geneva, France on September 22 began the withdrawal of 7,000 troops from the Rhineland. It was stated that complete evacuation was contemplated, although this could not take place for many months and then only under the most favorable conditions.
Reduction of the French Army was also begun as a part of Premier Poincare’s policy of rigid economy in all government departments. The reduction will bring the officer force from 32,000 to 28,000, or 7,000 less than in 1913.
GREAT BRITAIN
Decline of British Sea Power (New York Times, September 26.)—England has reached its culminating point as a world power, and may possibly recede from that dominant position in world affairs which it has so long held, according to Dean Ralph Inge, the “gloomy dean,” in his book, England, one of a series on “The Modern World.”
Dean Inge thinks that England and Germany both suffered defeat by the war, and that America was the only victor. He also declares that an English-speaking alliance is an impossibility, and that in the event of England being attacked, the United States would not go to her aid unless the invasion were by a black army. England, friendless, and shorn of her power, with the future dark before her, is the picture drawn by Dean Inge.
There are many reasons for this event, he says, but the main one is the decline of England as a sea power. “English naval supremacy is at an end, and with it the instrument by which we built up and maintained our empire. Naval strength depends mainly on national wealth. We are no longer rich enough to build ships against all possible rivals; and the Americans by insisting on our repayment of the vast debt, incurred for the sake of France, to which we rashly put our names, have secured that we shall remain permanently tributary to themselves, and unable to challenge them on the water.
“Our government had practically to choose between accepting Wilson’s ‘point’ about the freedom of the seas, conceived in an unfriendly spirit to Britain, and agreeing to a numerical equality between the British and American fleets. They wisely accepted the latter, since the unlimited resources of the United States would make effective competition impossible. Our position as a world power is thus permanently altered for the worse.
“There are no occasions for war between the British Empire and the United States, since our government invariably gives way. We sometimes even flatter ourselves that on any great moral issue we are more likely to find America ranged on our side than against us. But no such comforting reflections are possible when we turn to our altered position in regard to our nearest neighbor in Europe.
“We drew the sword primarily for the sake of Belgium, because it has been a fixed principle of British policy that we cannot allow the harbors of Belgium and Holland to pass under the control of a great military power. We have fought several wars, chiefly against France, to prevent this from happening. Now we have been compelled to allow an alliance between France and Belgium, which would place the smaller country at the service of the greater in the event of another war. Thus we have lost a safeguard which we have always deemed primary importance.”
British Policy in the Mediterranean.—An article on this subject by Sir Frederick Maurice, in October Foreign Affairs, deals chiefly with British policy in Egypt. As regards the Sudan, he feels certain that, although some concessions to Egypt are possible and Egypt is entitled to a guaranteed supply of Nile water, English government and public opinion would never consent to its surrender to Egyptian control.
As regards British forces in Egypt, he believes the Suez Canal could be adequately protected by the fleet and a small garrison along the canal. He writes: The canal is commonly called in the British press “the vital artery of the British Empire.” That, like most catch phrases, is an exaggeration. The British Empire existed long before the Suez Canal was constructed, and if the canal were to disappear today the British Empire would not therefore collapse. From a military point of view the position of Great Britain as regards the Suez Canal is not unlike her position in regard to the Dardanelles, when there was danger of a Russian fleet issuing through those straits to make a flank attack upon her communications with the East. It would be a matter of vital importance to Great Britain if in time of war a hostile fleet could come through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to attack her communications across the Indian Ocean, but that again would be prevented more certainly by a British fleet based upon Malta and the British possession of Perim and Aden at the southern exit of the Red Sea than by a British garrison in Egypt. If in war with a Mediterranean naval power the canal were to be closed to both belligerents, either by sabotage or by some other means, the loss to Great Britain would not be great, for with modern large and fast steamers troops and stores could be sent to the East by the Cape route more rapidly than they could have been sent by the canal route when de Lesseps had completed his great work. Further, in the event of war against a Mediterranean naval power, the submarine, for the employment of which the indented coasts of that sea are admirably adapted, would almost certainly make traffic between Port Said and Gibraltar so precarious that it would have to be abandoned. For this reason we had during the latter part of the Great War to rely more and more upon the Cape route.
The Suez Canal is not therefore vital to the British Empire, because there is an alternative route to the East which in most circumstances can be more easily secured. 1 he canal is the shortest, cheapest, and most convenient route to the East and the Pacific in time of peace, and until conditions in Egypt are more settled than they are today it may be advisable to keep a small garrison to protect the canal against sabotage. Such a garrison would be much more conveniently placed for this duty elsewhere than in Cairo and Alexandria, and quartered say at Tel-el-Kebir, where it would be equidistant from Port Said and Suez and in easy communication with both, its presence would be unobtrusive. There are thus grounds for negotiation as to the strength and location of the British Garrison, provided that the question of the protection of foreign interests can be settled.”
In discussing Great Britain’s right to forbid foreign interference in Egypt, Sir Frederick points to the colonial ambitions of Italy, and says that “Were Great Britain to leave Egypt to herself there is little doubt that Italy would not be long in finding a justifiable reason for intervention in a country where there is a large Italian population and extensive Italian business interests.” To abandon that work to another power “which has not had the long and costly experience of Egyptian administration acquired by Great Britain would be foolish and not in the interest of the country.”
SPAIN
Revolt Crushed.—In early September despatches, the Spanish government asserted that the rebellion organized chiefly by the artillery corps had been put down with only two deaths. Martial law was proclaimed on September 6, and King Alfonso returned by a rapid automobile trip to Madrid.
Plebiscite a Farce.—As was expected and indeed announced before hand by Dictator Primo de Rivera, the plebiscite (September 11-13) on the merits of the present government in Spain resulted favorably to the government. Votes had to be registered openly before local committees picked by the government, which powerfully discouraged adverse votes.
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE
Greek Revolt Suppressed.—On September 10 it was announced that General Kondylis, the recently-established Greek dictator, had put down a revolt of the Republican Guard. This corps had been organized by General Pangalos, but aided Kondylis and demanded a share in the spoils. Colonel Zervas, leader of the Guard, marched his forces towards the government headquarters but was defeated in the streets of Athens with forty killed and about one hundred wounded.
Mussolini Again Attacked.—For the third time within a year and at least the fifth since he became dictator, an attempt was made on September 11 against the life of Premier Mussolini. A bomb, thrown by an anarchist at his automobile, bounded from the car and exploded in the road, injuring eight people. The Premier declared that he would protest to France for harboring plotters, whose attempts disturbed Italy.
French Protest to Turkey.—On September 2, the French Government sent a protest and demand for indemnity to Turkey because of the arrest of Lieutenant Desmons of the French merchant ship Lotus. The Lotus sank a Turkish cargo boat outside Turkish waters. After Lieutenant Desmons was induced to come ashore at Constantinople to explain the offense, he was tried and imprisoned.
Later France accepted the Turkish proposal to submit the matter to the World Court.
NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA
Liberals Win Canadian Election.—In the Canadian Parliamentary elections of September 14 the Liberals increased their plurality over other parties, seating 118 members and lacking only five votes of a majority over Conservative and smaller groups combined. During the campaign Mr. Mackenzie King, the Liberal leader and ex-premier, was accused of favoring American annexation. He declared, however, that he stood squarely for Canada’s remaining in the empire, but with full power of self-government. The Conservative ministry of Arthur Meighen resigned September 25 in favor of a new cabinet under Mr. King. It was stated that Mr. Vincent Massey of Toronto would be made the first Canadian minister to the United States.
Armistice in Nicaragua.—Civil war in Nicaragua was suspended on September 20 by an armistice between the revolutionists of the Liberal party and the de facto government of general Chamorro. Disputes are to be arbitrated by Rear Admiral Julian L. Latimer, U. S. N., or officers designated by him.
After the withdrawal of U. S. Marines from Nicaragua, after thirteen years’ occupancy, General Chamorro overthrew the Liberal administration and has since been in control. Hostilities against him broke out in August. The U. S. Department of State sent the U. S. S. Tulsa to Corinto, the Galveston to Bluefields, where sailors and marines were landed, and the Rochester to R ragman’s Bluff.
FAR EAST
Thompson Report to Stress Trade and Strategic Value of Philippines (New York Times, September 25). Baguio, Philippine Islands, September 24.—Colonel Carmi Thompson’s report to President Coolidge on Philippine Affairs probably will emphasize the information he has gathered regarding the strategic value of the Philippines to the United States from the viewpoint of international politics and economics.
Americans in high positions in Manila have told Mr. Thompson that the United States should retain sovereignty over the Philippines in order to protect American interests and for the preservation of international peace in the Far East.
According to this view, if we withdrew from these fertile tropical islands, strategically located at the Orient’s gateway, we would have to relinquish our position as an Asiatic power. Without the Philippines as a commercial and military base, it is said, we could not enforce the open door policy of equal trade opportunities for all nations in China, could not share the limitless economic opportunities sure to accompany the awakening of the East and could not wage war effectively in the Pacific to protect our interests.
The argument advanced to support this contention is that the Philippines strategically are the only place available to the United States as a base. The Philippines are part of a group of islands from Japan on the north to Borneo in the south, which form a screen across the Pacific to the coast of Asia, constituting the door to the future possibilities of the Far East. As long as America holds this strategic position, it is argued, she will remain a powerful factor in the Orient’s economic and international life.
Struggle for Wuchang.—The conflict between the forces of General Wu Pei-Fu and Cantonese troops advancing into Central China resulted, according to reports at the close of September, in the retreat of Wu’s forces, who, however, still held the cities of Wuckang and Hankow on the Yaung-tse River. General Sun Chuan-fan, ruler of the five east central provinces, after some delay allied himself with General Wu, and on September 25 recaptured Nanchang with 5,000 Cantonese. It was reported that the Cantonese had mined the river below Wuchang, and that American and other foreign vessels had been fired on. Several American destroyers were ordered to Hankow.
Shanghai Courts Relinquished to China.—The agreement between the Consular Corps at Shanghai and the provincial Chinese officials for the return to the Chinese of the Mixed Court was made public on September 27. The Peking regime, although not represented, was informed of the transaction. Foreigners are protected by the continuance of all treaty rights, and the foreign settlements police alone can make arrests within the settlements. The transfer will probably take effect January 1.
Owing to the withdrawal of the Chinese representatives and the absence of a responsible government in China, the Extra-Territoriality Conference has suspended its sessions indefinitely.
British Sailors Killed.—Various reports came from China regarding a conflict early in September between British vessels and Chinese troops on the upper Yang-tse River near Wanhsien. According to the British account, several Chinese soldiers were drowned in an attempt to board a British merchant vessel. Subsequently, General Yang Sen, a follower of Wu Pei-Fu, seized two other vessels of the same company, and trained guns on H. M. S. Kiawo, anchored alongside. The Kiawo rescued the white officers and crew from the British vessels after fighting in which three British naval officers and four seamen were killed. The British then bombarded the city of Wanhsien.
In the absence of any responsible government in China, the British authorities took no further steps. On the other hand, just before the close of the League Assembly session at Geneva, the Chinese representative, Chu-Chao-hsin, made a violent attack on Great Britain for the bombardment of Wanhsien.
Russia and Great Britain in China. (From an article by Nicholas Roosevelt in Foreign Affairs for October).—In this article Mr. Roosevelt points out that British officials in China have been hampered by a realization that neither the government nor public opinion at home would countenance a policy involving the use of force. Officials themselves realize, however, not only that “the day of the gunboat policy is ended,” but that such a policy would not solve present problems.
Referring to the efforts of M. Joffe and later M. Karakhan, Soviet ambassadors at Peking, to stir up anti-foreign and especially anti-British feeling in China, he remarks that it has been easy for them to secure the services of Chinese teachers and students for a very small sum to carry on anti-foreign propaganda. They used the strike in Shanghai in May, 1925, and the subsequent shootings in Shanghai and Canton, to further this campaign. The Chinese boycott of British trade, he states, resulted in a drop of fifty per cent in British exports and forty per cent in imports at ' Hongkong in the third quarter of 1925.
The anti-foreign propaganda stirred up by Russia, however, will ultimately react against the Soviet Government itself. Mr. Roosevelt concludes as follows:
“Russia’s great weakness in attempting to carry out her China policy is that her only weapon is propaganda. This weapon, to be sure, she has used with exceptional skill. It is not powerful enough, however, to enable her successfully to combat policies which rest on large trade interests or on strong military power.
“Despite the weakened military prestige of Great Britain in China, she derives great strength from the fact that the Chinese need her products. So long as Britain can prevent other nations from winning her markets in China, the Chinese will be compelled to compromise with her. It is the knowledge of this fact which has made the British always so insistent on cooperation between the foreign powers in their attitude towards China. This has been particularly true in the case of the Hongkong boycott. The British have resented bitterly the fact that America and the other nations refused to join her in boycotting Canton in return for the Hongkong boycott. Not only have they felt that this would have ended the trouble immediately, but they have seen the Japanese, the Scandinavians, and nationals of other countries entering markets in Canton and elsewhere in South China where formerly British trade had been supreme. The British do not want to lose any of this trade permanently, not only on account of its inherent value, but because of its importance in Great Britain’s political policy in the Far East.
“Although in no country is the venture of prophecy so hazardous as in China, yet it may be stated that there are in China today two tendencies—first, the gradual weakening of British economic and political supremacy in China, and the concentration of Great Britain’s interests west of Singapore; and second, the advance of Russia on Manchuria and North China, strangely parallel to what was taking place prior to the Russo-Japanese War. Both of these tendencies will be hastened or delayed by the development of the so-called nationalist movement in China and by the activities of Japan on the Asiatic mainland.
“Russia still dreams of dominating North China and of ultimately being able to force the hated British out of Asia. Russia’s role, therefore, is fundamentally an aggressive one. For Great Britain the great problem is to know how to hold what she already has.”