FROM AUGUST 3 TO SEPTEMBER 3
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Conflict Between Church and State in Mexico. The struggle between the state and the Catholic Church in Mexico, arising from the enforcement after July 31 of the religious clauses of the Mexican Constitution, continued through August. The most effective weapon employed by the church was an economic boycott affecting all purchases save absolute necessities. This was said to have cut down the sale of automobiles and luxuries by 90 per cent and to have caused the closing of many shops. Street fighting occurred between rival factions of deputies in which several were killed and wounded. The taking of inventories of church property by civil authorities proceeded without interference. The government also (August 11) ordered the seizure of all property controlled by the Catholic clergy, valued at over $12,000,000.
Efforts at compromise apparently failed when on August 23 the Church refused to continue negotiations unless all regulations of the penal code affecting religion and the order for the registration of priests were suspended. Bishop Diaz, Secretary of the Episcopate, declared on August 26 that Catholics could accede to no proposal until the government attitude was changed and the constitutional clauses amended, and that they were prepared to wait months or even years for a satisfactory settlement.
In spite of complaints from American religious organizations the view of the U. S. State Department was that no injury had been inflicted on American lives or property .during the conflict thus far.
Nicaragua Protests Mexican Interference, (From New York Times of August 28).—Geneva, August 27.—Mexico was denounced today to members of the League of Nations by the Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Affairs, who charged an attempt with the aid of arms, munitions and troops of her regular army to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government. Mexico, according to the cablegram, received this afternoon by the Secretary General, Sir Eric Drummond, and immediately transmitted to all states which are members of the League, says in part.
On the 17th instant the Mexican auxiliary warship Cone on set sail from Salina Cruz on a free-booting expedition against the peace of Nicaragua. It was equipped, armed and manned, including military forces actually in service, by the Mexican Government for the purpose of assisting Nicaraguan revolutionaries who have so far failed, however, in attempts to overthrow the public order.”
The cablegram is purely informative and denunciatory and requests no action by the League.
Unusual interest attaches to Nicaragua’s protest inasmuch as it is the first Latin American controversy to come before the League, and the course the League will follow in a dispute on the American Continent is eagerly awaited.
The Nicaraguan Government likely will have something to say to the League Assembly, which meets ten days hence. If sufficiently heated the minister might go so far as to say the Monroe Doctrine permitted American battleships to protect American interests, but not to halt Mexican warships in an act violating international peace by aiding revolutionaries of a sister republic.
U. S. Protests on Mexican Oil and Land Laws (From Lew York Times, August 7).—Washington, August 6.—A new note challenging the regulations issued under the recently enacted Mexican petroleum and alien land laws has been sent to the Mexican Government for delivery through Ambassador Sheffield. It is a long document taking up the issue where it was left off last spring, when only the land law regulations had been issued and the petroleum law regulations were yet to be promulgated.
The general position taken by the American Government in its communication is identical with the policy that has been observed throughout the long controversy in which it insisted that both the new laws—those dealing with American land and oil rights— failed to give full recognition to rights lawfully acquired prior to the adoption of the present Mexican constitution when Mexican law expressly provided that the owner of surface lands owned also the subsoil rights of petroleum, and permitted the legal acquisition also of land by aliens.
American officials were quite hopeful on April 1 that the new laws would be so carried out as to protect American interests without giving either law a retroactive or confiscatory application and that while the laws on their fact did not seem to American officials subject to interpretation as affording such protection the regulations issued under that legislation would do so.
Panama-American Treaty Terms.—According to Time (August 7), the terms of the recently negotiated treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama, not yet ratified by the U. S. Senate, are as follows:
(1) The northern area of Colon, including the Washington Hotel and the territory surrounding the Colon Hospital, the quarantine district and wireless stations, will be transferred to the United States.
(2) Panama will cooperate with the United States for the military protection of the Canal, and will consider herself in a state of war in any war in which the United States is a belligerent.
(3) A joint Panama-United States board will issue airplane flight licenses to United States and Panama aviators only.
(4) The Volstead Act will apply in the Canal Zone except as to liquor in transit, under seal, through the Zone or between two points within Panama.
(5) The Panama Government will operate the customs at the Canal Ports instead of the United States Government, as now.
FRANCE
Clemenceau’s Debt Appeal to President Coolidge.—M. Clemenceau, war premier of France, now eighty-five years old, on August 8 broke six years of silence in an open letter to President Coolidge. The letter argued that the debt of France, to her former allies should not be considered as a purely business proposition, but that account should be taken of France’s present financial straits, and her sacrifices of blood and treasure.
Since the letter was from a private citizen it was given no formal recognition by the United States Government. The administration indicated its attitude as being that the debt negotiations were now closed and the results subject to the action of our Senate and the French Parliament, the U. S. House having already approved. Commenting on the letter, Senator Borah suggested that “if European powers desired cancellation, there should be a general cancellation including indemnities from defeated powers.”
Poincare Triumphs in Chamber.—The success of the union ministry of M. Poincare was signalized in early August by a decided rise in the value of the franc. The French parliament under strong pressure passed tax bills levying increased taxes chiefly on imports, rail, and motor transportation, foreign investments, and direct inheritances, and providing 2,500.000,000 francs increased revenue for this year and 9,000,000,000 for next. At a session of the National Assembly of the Senate and Chamber meeting together at Versailles, the French constitution was amended in order to make irrevocable the recent legislation providing for a 49 billion franc sinking fund, supervised by nonpartisan experts outside parliamentary control, to take care of France’s internal debt. The Parliament then adjourned.
Franco-German Commercial Treaty.—From Current History for September.)—After twenty months of negotiations signatures were affixed in Paris on August 5 to the Franco- German commercial treaty. Owing to certain questions not yet definitely settled the accord is for a six-month-period only, hut is renewable by tacit understanding every half-year. The agreement replaces three modus vivendi adopted in April and September, 1925, and March, 1926, which covered only certain groups of the respective exports and imports of the two countries. The new accord covers almost the full range of trade between the two nations and was facilitated by a series of private agreements reached between the French and German iron and steel makers, in which several other nations were also participants. The treaty-became effective on August 20. The text stipulates that its object is to prepare a definitive treaty and that a month after the French have enacted a new tariff law the delegations will meet again to discuss a permanent treaty. The treaty required ratification by the German Reichstag, but did not need the approval of the French Parliament. It was hailed as a step toward an economic Locarno.
SOUTHERN EUROPE
Pangalos Ousted in Greece.—On August 22 the Pangalos regime in Greece was overthrown by a bloodless revolution led by General Condylis and supported by the army and navy. General Condylis organized a temporary cabinet, pending elections promised for October. Admiral Condoriotis resumed the presidency. The London press declared the change meant a return of old Greek politicians into control. Greek currency took an upward turn, reflecting increased confidence in financial quarters.
General Pangalos attempted escape in a destroyer, but he was pursued, captured, and later imprisoned in Crete pending trial by a special court.
Spanish-Italian Treaty.—On August 9 it was announced that Italy and Spain had signed an arbitration treaty, cementing a rapprochement of the two Latin states which has been in process for some time. Although the exact terms of the treaty were not to be given out until after its registration with the league, its provisions and significance were thus stated in Time of August 15: What are the terms of this avowedly secret treaty? The signatory powers contented themselves with a cryptic announcement: “The treaty will be made public when it is registered with the League of Nations,” an event which may perhaps be delayed indefinitely.
From “inspired statements” in the Hispano-Italian press, it became clear that the instrument consists of some fifteen articles, dealing with the relations of Italy and Spain, firstly from a political and secondarily from a juridical aspect:
(1) Neutrality on the part of one signatory power is provided in the event of the other signatory being attacked without provocation by a third power.
(2) A commission of five members (one Spaniard, one Italian, and three neutrals acceptable to them) will be constituted to arbitrate questions arising between the signatories.
The nice interbalance of the Northern Mediterranean powers and their incessant rivalries for possession of Southern Mediterranean lands renders the present treaty of paramount importance. France and Spain have just victoriously concluded a war which has given them control of Morocco and when a partition of this territory is made Italy will assumedly claim a share. Thus, in respect to Morocco alone, the new treaty looms ominously for France. Dictator-Premier Primo de Rivera of Spain went so far as to intimate to correspondents last week that Spam will demand for herself the now Franco-Anglo-Spanish-neutralized Zone of Tangier, Morocco.
Speculating further afield last week, a handful of alarmists prophesied that the treaty will mark the inception of a concerted Hispano-Italian program of “peaceful penetration” into South America through emigrant organizations and propaganda which may eventually threaten the Monroe Doctrine.
Dispute Over Tangier.—In the latter part of August Spain addressed to the powers concerned in the Treaty of Algeciras (except Germany, Austria, and Russia) a memorandum declaring that control of Tangier by Spain was necessary in order to prevent its use as a center for arms smuggling and plots against Spanish authority in Morocco. The document added that if necessary an appeal would be made to the League of Nations for a mandate over the Tangier town and district.
It was assumed that the British attitude toward this claim would be continued opposition to control of Tangier by any one nation, in view of its possible value as a counterweight to Gibraltar. In France the view was taken that the League was in no way concerned since technically the decision rested with the Sultan of Morocco, under French protection. French authorities however were willing to give Spain control of the Tangier police, now under Belgian direction. Italy expressed a desire to be included in the control of Tangier on the same terms as France, Great Britain, and Spain.
It was believed that the Spanish demand was advanced at this time in the hope that it might be granted as the price of Spanish consent to the admission of Germany to the League Council in September.
RUSSIA AND EASTERN EUROPE
Soviets Swinging from Radicalism (From New York Times, August 18).—Warsaw, August 17.—A definite drift to the right in Russia, with the Stalin Government holding steady while the old revolutionaries are gradually being forced into the background, was pictured by M. Ketrzynski, the Polish Minister at Moscow, upon his arrival here yesterday.
He declared that the movements led by the old leaders, such as Trotzky and Zinovieff, are headed for oblivion, and that new and notably young leaders are replacing the old figures who revered Lenin and his revolutionary gospel.
He also stated that there is a strong anti-Jewish feeling growing and that anti-Semitic rioting may be expected momentarily.
In the move to the Right, Zinovieff’s chief complaint was that the present governing groups have ceased to maintain a real world revolutionary spirit, have lost their fighting inclinations and are coming more to a policy of maintaining a pure Russian state policy, which means the abandonment of communist conquests abroad.
The upshot of the recent disturbances, which so far have not resulted in an open struggle, is a distinct drift to the Right, in which foreign relations will be considered in connection with an all-Russian policy, according to M. Ketrzynski.
The report of the envoy is related closely, in the opinion of observers here, to Poland’s foreign program at Geneva in September, in which it is hoped to show that a refusal of a seat on the council will force Poland to a reapproachment with the Soviet states.
Treaty between Poland and Jugoslavia (From New York Times, August 20).—Belgrade, August 19.—Jugoslavia and Poland, to strengthen the good relations between them, have agreed upon the text of a treaty of friendship and arbitration in conformity with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The treaty will be signed in Geneva next month.
The conclusion of this treaty at a time when the composition of the League Council is under discussion indicates that all the friends of France are being mobilized on behalf of the Polish claim.
In return for this it is intended that Jugoslavia should have a greater body of support in the council, if any future dispute with Bulgaria is referred for settlement to the League.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Conference on American World Court Reservations.—Up to August 22, eighteen nations had accepted the invitation of the League Council to a conference at Geneva on September 1 to discuss the reservations submitted by the United States as conditions of its participation in the Permanent Court of International Justice. Of the five reservations, the fifth, objecting to advisory opinions by the Court on subjects in which the United States was concerned, was expected to give the most difficulty.
Reorganization of Council Seats.—The final session of the Committee on Reorganization of the League Council was held on August 30, preliminary to the sessions of the League Council and Assembly in September. Previous to this meeting, a plan was devised by experts which provided semi-permanent five-year seats in the council for both Spain and Poland. Only Germany however was to be given a permanent seat.
Work of Arms Committee.—The preparatory committee for the Disarmament Committee took up in August the preparation of its report for submission to the League Council. Much difficulty arose over the answer to question 4 regarding defensive armament. The preamble as finally adopted read as follows: “Generally speaking, any component elements of armaments which are incapable of mobility by means of self-contained power, or can only be transported after long delay, and are erected within the home territory of a country, can only be used for the defense of that territory.”
The most important of these component elements named by the drafting committee and adopted unanimously by the commission are:
“First, fixed defenses including shelters and obstacles, excluding armament and transportable equipment—fixed installations for observation and signalling and communications of all kinds such as are buried, and submarine cables, lookout stations, narrow gauge railways boom defenses.
“Second, mobile defenses, including vessels of small sea-going efficiency and low power endurance, capable of use only within a strictly limited distance along the national coast line. In this case proximity to the coast of another state, or to an important commercial trade route, would confer on such craft, despite their limited radius, activity of high offense value.
“Third, defense against air attacks including fixed anti-aircraft gun emplacements—fixed searchlight emplacements—balloon screens—listening and observation posts—camouflaged installations.”
There are expressly excluded from defensive armament:
“Organizations the principal purpose of which is obviously to enable long range artillery or an air attack to be brought to bear on the communications of a neighboring country or its exposed points near the frontier, and which are not indisputably justified by the necessity of protecting especially exposed points in the country concerned, and naval or air bases, the principal object of which is not to defend the territory or vital communications of the state to which they belong, but either to cover the assembling of supplies, materials for repairs, etc., in order to extend the striking range of naval or air forces, or to command for the benefit of a single country certain routes used by international seaborne trade.”
The last clause was proposed by the French as a slap against British control of the seas, and it was accepted by the British without a murmur.
Objections to Arms Control Body.—Geneva, Aug. 19.— The United States, Great Britain, Japan, Italy, Chile and Sweden today introduced a minority report on the question of international control of armaments, declaring the proposed Board of Supervision would be a kind of international general staff, the creation of which would be open to serious objections.
This action was taken after a majority of the Military Disarmament Commission, which is preparing for a disarmament conference, had advocated the organization of a permanent body for the collection and dissemination of armament information with the prerogative of ruling as to whether armaments showed an aggressive or defensive tendency.
The dissenting nations declared that it would be extremely difficult for the commission to reach unanimous reports and that the members would be influenced by divergent political considerations which were bound to hamper an impartial inquiry.
Furthermore, it was believed that inquiries on the spot where a decision might be taken were certain to lead to unfortunate political results.
It was also deemed impossible that one country might bring a charge against another for the purpose of obtaining information about secret defensive organizations of the country accused.
In conclusion the report says that the introduction of restrictions upon the sovereign rights of states tends to militate against the creation of an atmosphere of good faith among nations.
FAR EAST
United States Objects to New Chinese Loan.—In a note published August 23 the United States protested to China against the projected issue of a new domestic loan of 25,000,000 dollars silver, to be secured by customs revenues available next year. The note called attention to long-standing debts due to Americans, amounting to about $36,000,000, which were entitled to payment before new debts were incurred. In view of the present weakness of the Peking government, the note served merely to put the American position on record. Considering that the consortium, formed to supervise the lending of money to China, was called at the invitation of the United States government, that government had special reason to be concerned in China s present financial plans.
China Threatens to End Treaties.—In August it was reported that the Chinese minister at? Rome had announced at Geneva the intention of the Chinese government to abrogate its commercial and extraterritoriality treaty with Belgium, effective October 29. The authority of the minister was questioned. However, his announcement suggested the possible purpose of China to renounce all treaties with western powers.
Retreat of National Armies.—During August the Enominchun or so-called “National Army”, which had been threatening Peking from the Nankow Pass, retreated toward Kalgan, 116 miles northwest of Peking, before the army of Chang-tso Lin. General Wu Pei-fu’s forces were not active in this campaign, and it was reported that his army had suffered reverses in the fighting with Cantonese troops in the south.
Japanese-American Relations Discussed at Williamstown —During the session of the Institute of Politics at Williams- town in August, there were several speeches and round table discussions relating to political problems of the Pacific and Far East. Admiral Pratt, speaking on August 23, pointed to influences in the Far East which create the possibility of war. Except Russia, declared the Admiral, the great powers would wish to limit such a conflict, if it occurred, to minor proportions, whereas the Soviet Government would seek to involve all nations.
Summarizing the discussions in Japan, Professor Blakeslee, who was chairman of the round table, maintained that peace between Japan and the United States was apparently assured by the following four-fold guarantees:
“The diplomatic guarantee: No important clash of material interest or of policy now exists between the United States and Japan;
“The economic guarantee: One of the foundations of the present economic structure of Japan is its great export of raw silk to the United States;
“The military guarantee: In view of the uncertain situation in Manchuria and the apprehension felt by military men in Japan regarding future developments with Russia, it would be military madness for Japan to permit even strained relations with its powerful neighbor at its back door;
“The political guarantee: The responsible political leaders of both the United States and Japan are obviously determined to preserve unbroken friendship between the two countries.
In conclusion he described a necessity for healing the wounds caused by the Japanese exclusion measure, if the Japanese immigration question is to be regarded as definitely settled.
Russian Menace in Manchuria.—Williamstown, Massachusetts, August 16.—Manchuria as a danger zone to China and the Far East caused a lively discussion at the Institute of Politics today. Among the speakers were Henry K. Norton, writer on Far Eastern affairs, and Nicholas Roosevelt of the editorial staff of the New York Times, who recently returned from the Far East.
Mr. Norton declared that the Russian drive toward the Pacific is just as insistent as the Japanese contention that Russia should not have a port or naval base south of Vladisvostok, and that only a strong China would be able to hold Japan and Russia outside her territory and put an end to danger in Manchuria. Until such a China is established the restraining influence of the other powers is absolutely necessary to preserve peace, he said.
Mr. Roosevelt recounted some of his observations in Manchuria. Referring to the rivalry of Russia and Japan in China, he asserted that the present policy of Russia in China, especially in North China, is not only a revival of the policy of Czarist Russia but that the Soviet Government “went Czarism one better.”
Soviet Russia, he said, not only has tried to assure its own rights in Northern Manchuria, but has tried to dislodge the other foreign powers from China, the principal method being propaganda to stimulate the anti-foreign agitation in China.
Both speakers agreed that the new Japanese railways in Manchuria, while ostensibly economic and commercial, could in time of war easily be utilized to cut the Chinese Eastern Railway and isolate Vladisvostok and the maritime provinces. It was indicated that Russia is contemplating the building of a road through Mongolia and Northern China toward Peking, with Shantung as an outlet to the sea.
A strong China might take over the network of new railways thank Japan and Russia for building them and then invite them to leave her territory.
While Russia, through its renunciation of extraterritoriality and the Boxer indemnity, had again become a leading factor in Peking with no other weapons than “propaganda and bluffing,” Mr. Roosevelt said the Bolsheviki made a mistake in thinking they could stir up anti-foreign propaganda and escape from the results of the agitation. In the end Russian prestige in China collapsed.
“My impression of the present policy of Russia in China especially Northern China,” declared Mr. Roosevelt, “is that it not only revived the policy of Czarist Russia but that it has gone that policy one better.”
Economic Dependence of Japan.— (From New York Times, August 7).—Williamstown, Massachusetts, August 6.—Speakers at the Institute of Politics today declared that the close commercial ties between Japan and the United States, their joint interest in the fostering of trade relations with China, and particularly Japan’s dependence on the American market, made war between the two nations extremely remote.
It was pointed out that the basis of Japan’s foreign policy was a pressing need for the cultivation of markets abroad. For Japan to lose a single foreign market, especially that of the United States, would be ruinous. It was asserted that the diminution of influence of the military party in Japan was a healthy sign pointing in the direction of the strengthening of civilian influence.
Among the speakers was F. R. Eldridge, Chief of the Far Eastern Division of the United States Department of Commerce. Mr. Eldridge discussed Japan’s growing dependence on foreign markets for her food supplies and raw materials, and indicated that Japan’s foreign policy was a direct outcome of her dependent economic condition. The recent industrial development of China, he said, coincided with the increase in the capacity of the American market to absorb Japan’s silk. The result has been that nine- tenths of the nation’s raw silk, which is 42 per cent of Japan’s exports, comes to the United States.
“Japan today finds herself in a singularly weak economic position despite a marvelous industrial growth,” Mr. Eldridge said. “With a population growing at the estimated rate of 1 per cent a year, these additional 750,000 new Japanese subjects are being fed on an ever increasing ratio of imported foodstuffs.
“Japan, moreover, is singularly deficient in raw materials and must depend upon India, the United States and China for almost all her raw cotton, upon Australia for wool, upon China for hides and upon British Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies for rubber and sugar. Under such circumstances Japan is not only constantly menaced by this dependence upon foreign sources of raw materials but in all other exports except raw silk, her foreign markets are constantly subject to local industrial development such as threatened to remove China from her list of best customers.”
“Japan presents the anomaly of rapid industrial growth coupled with an increasingly difficult economic position. Her very economic existence depends upon a still more diligent pursuit of the same policies of economy at home and the still wider cultivation of markets abroad that has characterized the last few years of her economic history. That these economic facts are the basis of Japan’s foreign policy, any one familiar with the trend of that policy in recent years cannot deny. The loss of any single important foreign market which now bolsters up Japan’s economic framework would be sufficient to throw the whole finely balanced structure into a singularly precarious position.”