FRANCO-ITALIAN NAVAL ACCORD
United States and Japan Consulted.— Prior to the final drafting of the Franco- Italian naval agreement, preliminary conferences were held in London by British, American, and Japanese representatives, the chief purpose of which apparently was to make sure that the terms of the new agreement should not modify or alter the original London treaty in such a way as to necessitate a second ratification of that document. There was also discussion of the conditions under which France was allowed to retain her present quota of 82,000 tons of submarines, and of the significance of the lesser limits of 23,000 tons and 12-inch guns for battleships. Before the middle of March it was announced that all technical details had been agreed upon, and Senator Morrow, who had interrupted a European tour to take part as American representative, left for Sicily. The final drafting was held up, nevertheless, and on March 25 the French delegates returned to Paris for further instructions, after serious disagreement over the terms for replacement of obsolete battleships. Secretary Stimson’s radio address on the new agreement, set for March 29, was postponed.
Terms of Agreement.—The text of the preliminary arrangement between France and Italy, as made public by the British Foreign Office on March 11, contained provisions in brief as follows:
(1) Before December 31, 1936, France and Italy may each complete two capital ships of 23,333 tons and not over 12-inch guns, and upon completion of each ship will scrap, in the case of France, one ship of the Diderot type, and in the case of Italy an equivalent 16,820 tons of first- class over-age cruisers. The total capital ship tonnage permitted each nation is increased from 175,000 to 181,000 tons.
(2) Each nation may complete 34,000 tons of aircraft carriers.
(3) After completion of the 1930 program, neither nation will build cruisers of over 6.1-inch guns, and of smaller cruisers only sufficient to replace scrapped vessels.
(4) There will be no further submarine construction except for replacement and to complete the 1930 program. France may retain her present submarine strength of 81,989 tons. While considering this figure too high, the British Commonwealth agrees not to have recourse to the “escalator clause” prior to the Arms Conference of 1932.
By the arrangement, construction by each nation will be about equal, but will be reduced to about 22,000 tons a year, as compared with 40,000 tons previously considered. France will retain her total tonnage superiority, but by 1936 this will be largely in older or obsolete ships.
EUROPEAN NATIONS
Austro-German Tariff Union.—Quite unexpectedly after futile efforts to secure economic cooperation under League auspices, and apparently cutting the ground from under M. Briand’s schemes for European union under French guidance, came the announcement on March 19 of arrangements for an agreement between Germany and Austria practically sweeping away all trade barriers. According to the terms of the agreement, customs duties on imports to each country would be made the same, tariff receipts would be pooled and distributed proportionately, and the agreement would run for three years, with provision thereafter for abrogation on a year’s notice. The agreement it was said was made on the solicitation of Austria and was accepted by Germany to forestall a similar agreement between Austria and Czechoslovakia. Trade envoys of the latter country were in Vienna and left when the German deal was announced.
This move toward the much-feared Anschluss of the Central Powers aroused hot resentment in France and perturbation among the Balkan nations. It was at once questioned whether the pact was not contrary to the Treaty of St. Germain, Sec. Ill, Art. 88 of which requires Austria “to refrain from any act which might directly or indirectly or by any means whatever compromise her independence,” and contrary also to the terms of the Geneva protocol of October, 1922, providing for Austria’s economic rehabilitation. A crisis was avoided by Foreign Minister Henderson’s suggestion to Germany and Austria, after consultation with M. Briand, that they should take no further steps until the League Council had passed upon the legality of the plan. To this the two powers consented, though Foreign Minister Curtius of Germany declared in a speech before the Reichsrat on March 31 that the question of legality had already been carefully considered. He hoped the pan-European preparatory commission would also examine it in their next session on May 15. Curtius is himself due to preside at the League Council meeting on May 18.
Governmental Loans.—Completion of preliminary arrangements for a French loan to Rumania of $26,000,000, to be issued at 81 with 7.5 per cent interest, was announced in the Paris press of March 5. Similiar French loans to Poland and Jugoslavia are under consideration, and Greece is reported to be seeking a credit of $40,000,000 to be placed half in Paris and half in London. The success of the Franco-Italian naval agreement has increased also the prospects of favorable French action on a loan in the neighborhood of $100,000,000 which Italy has for some time been seeking abroad.
Spain likewise during March secured a foreign loan of $60,000,000, the advancement of this credit affording some evidence of continued foreign faith in King Alfonso’s ability to maintain himself in power. The American share in this loan is reported to be $38,000,000. The money is to be used chiefly in an effort to stabilize the peseta, the decline in the value of which has been a considerable factor in Spain’s recent political agitation.
Sixth Soviet Congress.—The most notable feature of the sixth session of the All-Union Soviet Congress which convened at Moscow on March 8 was the opening speech of the new President of the Council of People’s Commissars (or Premier) Vyacheslaf Molotoff. Against charges of dumping abroad M. Molotoff declared that Russia’s share in the world export trade was only $500,000,000 in 1930 as compared with $750,000,000 in 1913. He declared Russian labor was “disciplined” but not “forced,” and warned America against trade barriers to keep out Soviet goods, lest Russia should make her purchases elsewhere. Later in the sessions of the Congress the two deposed Right leaders Rykoff and Bucharin were returned to places in the Central Executive Committee, and Rykoff was made Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, an evidence of increased solidarity in Communist party councils.
U.S. State Department to Study Russia.—Announcement was made on March 8 that Secretary of State Stimson had arranged for more detailed study of Russian problems, especially in view of the multitude of questions that have recently arisen relating to Russo-American trade and Communist activities in America. The move was not taken as a step toward American recognition, and in fact an order was shortly afterward issued restricting the use of passports by Americans wishing to enter Russia. The increased study may be taken rather as a timely recognition of the fact that the Russian Communist experiment, whatever its outcome, is certain to be an important factor in world relations during the next few decades.
Adjournment of German Reichstag.— On March 26 the German Reichstag adjourned till October 16, leaving the Bruening cabinet with full parliamentary sanction to carry out its policies in the meantime with dictatorial powers. The action of the Hitlerite deputies in walking out of the Reichstag in February, while intended as a move to force the cabinet out of office, had the effect rather of a stupid blunder which discredited the whole Nationalist movement and strengthened the alliance between the government and the dominant Socialist party. The 1931 budget of $2,540,000,000 was put through without opposition, including the initial appropriation for a second cruiser of the Ersatz Preussen type.
NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA
Further Upsets in Peru.—During March the political situation in Peru was marked by further upheavals, demonstrating, according to some interpretations, a state of complete governmental chaos, and according to others a persistent purpose of the Peruvian people to get away from dictatorial rule. Scarcely had the Cerro government been replaced by an Army-Navy junta headed by Chief Justice Ricardo Elias, when on March 5 a body of troops returning from the south under Lieutenant Colonel Jiminez marched into Lima, quickly seized the government house and other strategic points, and forced the Elias junta out of power. Negotiations were then opened with the southern leaders at Arequipa, and it was finally arranged that a new government should be set up with a cabinet representative of both Army and Navy and all sections of the country, with Colonel Samanaz Ocampa, head of the Arequipa faction, as provisional president and Colonel Jiminez as minister of war. As soon as possible elections were to be held, in which no member of the present government was to appear as a candidate.
Although this arrangement was apparently accepted by all factions, the country was not allowed to settle down without another bloody uprising, when on March 24 the troops chiefly of the Fifth Regiment revolted against their officers but were finally driven back into their barracks and disarmed after a loss of about 200 lives. This regiment had figured conspicuously in previous upsets and had seemingly come to consider revolutions a matter of routine.
President Hoover in the Caribbean.— President Hoover’s one-week vacation cruise in the U.S.S. Arizona to Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, beginning March 18, had little political significance save in drawing attention to the progress in self-government made in Porto Rico despite adverse economic conditions, and on the other hand the complete impoverishment of the Virgin Islands, where from a variety of causes— the ruin of the rum industry by prohibition, the decline of sugar prices, the decreased importance of St. Thomas as a coaling station, and the withdrawal of naval forces—poverty has steadily increased under American rule. During his five-hour stay at St. Thomas, the President was entertained by Governor Pearson, recent civilian appointee to take over from the Navy one of our most difficult minor problems in colonial administration.
British Princes in South America.— The commercial mission to South America of the Prince of Wales and his youngest brother Prince George reached its culmination with the opening in March of the $20,000,000 British Empire Trade Exposition at Buenos Ayres. Coming to the Argentine capital on March 5 after highly successful visits to the republics of the West Coast, the Princes left on the twenty-first by airplane for Montevideo, where they planned to remain some time before continuing to Brazil. The Trade Exposition was described in the press as a most creditable display of British, Canadian, and other empire products, designed toward recovery of the Argentine and South American trade that has passed into the hands of the United States and also in increasing measure to Germany since the war. (See diagram taken from Time of March 23.)
Canadian Protest on “Josephine K.”— The Canadian Government on March 17 sent a note of protest at the shelling and seizure of the rum-running schooner Josephine K off the Jersey coast on January 25, and the killing of her captain, William P. Cluett, Lunenberg, N.S., by a shot fired from Coast Guard-145. The Canadian contention, as in the I’m Alone case of March 22, 1929, still under arbitration, is that the schooner when attacked was not within an hour’s steaming or sailing distance of the coast, and that there was an unjustifiable use of force in effecting her capture.
THE PROBLEM OF INDIA
Gandhi Voted Full Powers.—Following the truce negotiated by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian Viceroy Lord Irwin early in March, the Mahatma called a meeting of the All-India Nationalist Congress, and in its session at Karacha during the last week of March demonstrated his complete control of the party by securing the passage of a series of resolutions giving him practically a free hand as head of the Nationalist delegation in prospective round table discussions. Though it was stipulated that the goal of puma swaraj (complete independence) should remain intact, and that the delegation should work “to give the nation control over the Army, external affairs, and finance,” there was the saving clause that “the delegates will be free to accept such adjustments as may demonstrably be necessary.”
At a preliminary conference on March 21 between the Viceroy, Gandhi, and other Indian leaders it was tentatively arranged that the first part of the second round table negotiations should be held at Simla and the final session at London next September, with immediate work by committees on the federal organization, the separation of the Northwest Frontier Province, and other problems of the new constitution.
British-Indian Truce.—The action of the Nationalist Congress in approving further negotiations with England was preceded by the arrangement of a truce between Gandhi and the Viceroy, the terms of which, as published on March 5, provided for the cessation of the civil disobedience, campaign and the boycott of English goods, though the campaign against foreign clothing and intoxicants might be continued by peaceful methods. The government agreed in return to repeal special measures against civil disobedience, release political prisoners not guilty of violence, return seized property and remit fines, and permit local inhabitants to make salt for local consumption and sale. This truce was subsequently ratified by the Congress despite opposition from the extremists, who showed signs of getting beyond Gandhi’s control.
FAR EAST
Proposes Japan Take Philippines.—A logical though unexpected solution of the problem of Philippine independence was presented by the noted historian Herbert Adams Gibbon of Princeton when in an address at Manila on March 25 he declared that a Japanese mandate over the islands was the only alternative to continued American rule. Referring first to his past sympathy with nationalistic movements he declared the Philippine movement for independence unique in that, “it is not based upon any grievance and its leaders have absolutely no provision for the future after they achieve their aspirations.” The following extracts are from the New York Times:
There is no abuse of power arbitrarily exercised by foreigners. They are not eaten out of house and home by a host of foreign functionaries. They have no army of foreigners quartered upon them whom they are forced to support. There are none of the conditions in the Philippine Islands comparable to those which caused Patrick Henry to cry “Give me liberty or give me death.”
The Filipinos have liberty, quite as much liberty as, if not more than, the people of the United States. Liberty is an inherent right, independence is merely a technical term in international law.
Immediate independence is what I hear on every side. It is put into political platforms. It is the cry of electoral candidates. And yet no sensible Filipino can possibly believe that the United States would or could grant immediate independence to these islands. The American Congress would never dream of letting down the American business enterprises established in these islands, comparatively modest in importance as they are.
If independence were to be granted it could be only after a sufficient term of years had elapsed, with due warning given so that these interests of ours could liquidate in an equitable way. Moreover, the American people would be loath to cut the Filipinos adrift suddenly, for the sake of the Filipinos themselves. If the Filipinos do not know what it would mean to them to have American markets cut off overnight by the automatic application of the American tariff to their exports, we do. In saying flatly “No” to the immediate independence cry, which I do not hesitate to call claptrap, we are better friends to the Filipinos than they are to themselves.
And now we come to complete independence, or absolute independence, as some call it. Under existing conditions in the islands in Eastern Asia and in the world at large, this desideratum is as much of a will-o’-the-wisp as immediate independence. We wish it were not. I am wholly sincere in saying this. I think the American people would like to give the Filipinos complete independence. . . .
For a long time to come, both for their defense and for their economic well-being, the Filipinos will have to be content without immediate or complete independence. When we travel through their marvelous country, whose people are so friendly and hospitable, we wonder why they want to get rid of us. Is it true that they feel we have done them no good, that we have wronged them, that they would be better off today had they never seen an American in these islands?
Well, it is not what is but what one thinks that matters. If the Filipinos think that our thirty-odd years here are in vain and have been destructive rather than constructive, we certainly don’t want to remain another thirty. Our work is finished and we should recognize that fact. We are not Asiatics. Have we failed for the reason that only an Asiatic power would know how to treat the Filipinos well?
Japan is the logical successor of the United States as mentor of the Filipinos. Japan could develop these islands better than we have done. Japan would be more enthusiastically received, I have no doubt, than we have been. If the Filipinos want to get rid of the Americans, the Japanese succession is the only alternative I see. It would be impossible for the Filipinos to maintain complete independence against Japan. Let us talk facts. We all know that to be true.
Would it not be good policy, then, in view of the Filipino attitude toward us, for the United States to negotiate with the League of Nations for the appointment of Japan as mandatory of the League for these islands? A war over the Philippine succession would be thus avoided. We should be gracefully free of our unwilling wards. And Japan would round out her mandated area in this part of the world and have a new field for much needed expansion.
No Progress on Extraterritoriality.— Negotiations between China and Japan on the extraterritoriality issue taken up at the close of March were brought quickly to a halt when China declined to consider gradual relinquishment as a basis for discussion and insisted on immediate abolition of unequal treaties. In this respect it is unlikely that France and the United States will make further concessions than has Japan. Similar negotiations undertaken by the British Minister Sir Miles Lampson were broken off for the same reason, though it was reported that the British were ready to adopt a more yielding attitude and to surrender special privileges except at Shanghai.
Anti-Banditry Operations.—Conflicting reports came in during March as to the success of the government operations against banditry in China, especially in the provinces of Hupeh, Hunan, and Kiangsi. Orders were issued for energetic measures to bring brigandage under control before the opening of the People’s Conference originally set for May 15, but such results were to say the least unlikely in view of the activities of some 200,000 Communist forces in Kiangsi alone and 100,000 more in Hupeh. By April 1 the Peiping-Hankow Railway, which had been blocked by the Communists, was reported again “spasmodically” operating.
Conditions along the Yangtze were reported by Hallett Abend, in the New York Times of March 11, as follows:
The chaotic, lawless conditions on the Yangtze River from Hankow to Ichang are so bad that commerce would have had to come to a standstill months ago except for the continuous patrolling and attacks by foreign gunboats. In these activities the Japanese and British lead both in the number of warcraft and in aggressive policy. America is third, with fewer ships and a restrained policy.
The British and Japanese are absolutely ruthless in firing upon Communists and bandits along the shore, the Japanese particularly firing rifles, machine guns, and big guns whenever a Red flag or suspicious activities are evident. As a result, shore firings upon Japanese merchant ships are becoming more and more rare.
The American gunboats, numbering five in active commission, follow a policy of firing only when fired upon and then carefully restrict their fire to the assailants. Nevertheless, in the last seven months American gunboats were fired upon more than thirty times. American merchant ships with armed sailor squads were fired upon more than sixty times and American merchant ships without guards about a dozen times.
These figures are about double those of the preceding twelve months. Foreign naval authorities agree that disorder and attacks on foreign vessels are more widespread and more intense than in 1927, which heretofore was the worst period.
A disturbing factor in the situation is that Chinese gunboats, though plentiful and occasionally firing upon the Reds, are not of much service because they usually appear after the foreign gunboats have cleared the banks and almost always go downstream at full speed when trouble develops.
The only reassuring feature in the situation is the fact that Nanking is not objecting to the activities of the foreign navies on the Yangtze River while the civilian authorities of Yangtze towns are extremely cordial to the foreign gunboats, most classes of the Chinese population praising this foreign intervention in a situation which without foreign gunboats would rapidly become chaotic.