From December 3 to January 3
NAVAL PROBLEMS JAPAN ENDS WASHINGTON TREATY.— Japan on December 29 delivered formal notice of her decision to terminate the Washington naval treaty at the close of 1936. The accompanying statement made by the spokesman of the Japanese Foreign office merely set forth in as favorable a light as possible the bases of Japan's future naval policy—that the Washington ratios no longer give Japan security of national defense; that Japan desires "a common upper limit of naval armament . . . to be fixed as low as possible"; and that she still advocates that "offensive arms should be totally abolished and that defensive arms should be adequately provided."
Japan's denunciation of the treaty followed by ten days the termination of the preliminary naval conversations in London. The communique issued at the close of these conversations expressed the hope that the situation would so develop as to justify a subsequent meeting; but of this there was no immediate prospect. The feeling of many was summed up in the statement of Ambassador Davis, made early in December, that "the abandonment of the principles involved [in the Washington treaty] would lead to conditions of insincerity, of international suspicion, and of costly competition, with no real advantage to any nation." On the other hand, there were those who felt that the action of Japan might have a beneficial effect in clearing the atmosphere and leading to a more practical approach to the armament limitation problem. Certainly the Washington treaty did not eliminate friction, jealousy, or competition. With its abandonment, nations may build according to their needs and aims, without the endless disputes over types or total tonnage. In view of the theoretical equality of nations before the law, there was an irritating and invidious element in the ratio scheme which imposed limitations at different levels. France in particular never took with good grace her assignment to the 1.75 class, and has made it clear that she welcomed the new freedom of action and would have taken a similar course if she had not been anticipated by Japan.
Anglo-American Co-operation.—Following the denunciation of the Washington treaty there was a very general sentiment both in England and in America in favor of a closer co-ordination of the policies of the two nations in regard to Pacific and Asiatic affairs. In England, the Marquess of Lothian, speaking in the House of Lords on December 5, analyzed the situation as follows:
The issue in the Pacific today is whether the collective system is going to prevail against the present attempt to destroy it. If power diplomacy succeeds there it will inevitably succeed in Europe afterward.
If we can secure the active co-operation of the United States, as I believe we can, in vindicating the neutrality of the Pacific Ocean, we shall get rid of the chief obstacle to the collective system, which is America’s present abstention from active co-operation in that system.
The great failure of the present British government in the Far East was that it did not co-operate whole-heartedly with the United States when Secretary Stimson protested against Japan’s absorption of Manchuria. Now we have an opportunity to redeem that blunder, and if the situation is wisely handled it may be possible to restore in the Pacific a collective system strong enough to vindicate the principles set up in the group of Washington treaties in 1922.
Similarly, speaking before the American Chamber of Commerce in London on December 20, Sir Norman Angell, this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, was reported as favoring a better understanding between England and the United States. “The assumption is,” he said, “that if our two nations would act together we could end war and pull the world together.” He was also quoted as saying, somewhat unexpectedly, that “National defense is not incompatible with peace, and the surest road to peace is first of all to insure national defense for each nation.”
It is apparently realized by Sir Norman, and should be realized by all, that the call for Anglo-American solidarity is itself an appeal to force to preserve peace. The Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact, the League of Nations Covenant, and the “organized opinion of mankind” have failed in the Far East to present violation of territory and violation of treaties. The present appeal is to “power diplomacy,” and its potency would be nil but for the strength invested in the British and United States fleets. Even this strength would be ineffective unless there were definite assurance that it would be used if need be.
BALKAN SETTLEMENT
League Curbs Terrorism.—The League of Nations Council in December found itself faced with a new Balkan crisis, which, coming as an aftermath of the Marseilles assassinations, brought the Continental European nations into sharply opposed alignments. On the one hand stood the Little Entente nations, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Rumania, supported by France, and all firmly backing Yugoslavia’s complaint against Hungary for alleged harboring and encouragement of terrorist plots directed against the Little Entente states. On the other hand stood Hungary supported by Austria and Italy behind the terrorist complaints lay the real basis of dispute, the question of revision or stabilization of Balkan frontiers as laid down in the post-war treaties. This was expressed in French Foreign Minister Laval’s declaration in the Council that “whoever moves to displace a single frontier stone disturbs the peace of Europe,” and also in the retort of Baron Aloisi of Italy that his government had been first, to affirm that “the treaties should be adapted to new requirements.” The crisis was intensified when, in the midst of the Council’s diliberations and regardless warnings from Geneva, the Yugoslav Government began a general expulsion of Hungarian residents in Yugoslavia, about 27,000 in all, of whom some 3,000 were deported before the policy was suspended. Border incidents heightened the tension, though both Hungary and Yugoslavia denied any concentration of troops on the frontiers.
Despite sharp words in the Council, a solution was made easier by the fact that, with the possible exception of a few hot heads in the Balkans, all Europe was dominated by the desire for a peaceful outcome. With this assistance, the League peace machinery showed itself to best advantage. It forestalled hasty measures and provided a means of bringing diplomats together at one place and of making effective the strong pressure of neutral powers. The resolution adopted by the Council on December 10 was a skillful phrased compromise which avoided direct offense to either nation immediately concerned. Without declaring Hungary’s guilt called upon her “to take at once appropriate punitive action in the case of any of its authorities whose culpability may be established,” and to notify the Council of measures adopted. Furthermore it made a constructive move by authorizing a committee of ten members to study plans for an international penal court to deal with crimes of political terrorism. A French proposal along this line suggested a court of five judges, from whose decisions appeal could be taken only to the League Council.
The SAAR PLEBISCITE
FRANCO-GERIIAN AGREEMENT.—Long before the Saar Basin plebiscite of January 18, a result favorable to Germany was a foregone conclusion, and anxiety centered chiefly about the peaceful conduct of the Plebiscite and of the subsequent transfer. Loth these results were, it was thought, secured by agreements reached in December, largely through the instrumentality of the League Saar Commission.
The first of these agreements, signed at Rome on December 3 by France and Germany, provided for the settlement to be made by Germany, within a year's time, or the French investment in Saar mines and all other French credits in the district. According to the terms of the agreement, Gemany was to make a total payment of 900,000,000 French francs (about $59,400,000), part of which would however be covered by delivery of 11,000,000 tons of coal within 5 years. In the agreement Germany also gave pledges for the equal treatment of all elements in the Saar population, regardless of race, religion, or political beliefs.
International Saar Force. – The second agreement provide for an international military force to police the Saar during the period before and after the plebiscite. England’s reversal of policy in permitting a contingent of troops to be used for this purpose was apparently in response to the conciliatory attitude already displayed by Germany and France, the two nations immediately concerned. Military units from England, Italy, and Holland, numbering about 3,000 in all and constituting the League’s first international army, moved into the Saar on December 23.
EUROPEAN POLITICS
Franco-Italian Negotiations.—The departure of French Foreign Minister Laval for Rome on January 2 presaged the successful conclusion of the long-extended negotiations for a settlement of outstanding differences between Italy and France. Uppermost among the agreements to be reached at Rome was a new pact safeguarding the independence of Austria. On this France and Italy were united, but at the close of the year it was reported that Germany had manifested strong opposition, as indeed she might since the sole raison d'etre of the pact is to prevent German expansion. With the possible exception of Germany, all the neighbors of Austria were expected to join in guaranteeing her territorial integrity, with the additional support of Britain, Poland, and Rumania.
An equally important aim of French diplomacy is to secure from Italy definite pledges safeguarding the frontiers of Yugoslavia and the other states of the Little Entente, thus depriving Hungary of any further Italian bolstering for her treaty revision claims. At Rome all the signatories of the Austrian guarantee were expected to join in mutual pledges toward each other. What France can offer Italy in return for a promise of hands-off in the Balkans remains to be seen. Colonial concessions were the chief possibilities, including an improved status for Italians in Tunisia, adjustment of frontiers in North Africa, and a free hand to Italy in Somaliland.
With the Saar plebiscite and the Balkan terrorist dispute on their way to a peaceful solution, and the promising prospects at Rome, French diplomacy as conducted by M. Laval would appear to be making steady progress toward the fulfillment of its fundamental purpose—a stabilization of the present frontiers in Central Europe. A further element in this scheme is the so-called Eastern Locarno treaty plan, which would bring Russia and the Baltic States into the new system of mutual guarantees. Foreign Minister Laval and Commissar Litvinoff on December 6 signed an agreement that during negotiations for this pact neither party would make other accords which might hinder its accomplishment. France and Russia also signed on December 9 a convention providing for a new commercial treaty. While thus seeking peace by a complicated network of diplomacy, France is not neglecting defense, voting at the close of December an addition of $50,000,000 to her 1935 budget provision of $720,000,000 for armaments.
Russia’s Purge for Terrorists.—The murder on December of Sergei Kiroff, a prominent member of the all-powerful Polit Bureau or “Big Ten,” led the Soviet government to take quick revenge on all suspected enemies of the Stalin regime. The assassin was a former minor Soviet official named Leonid Nikolaieff. Before his trial, 103 “White Guard terrorists” were summarily arrested and put to death. On December 29 Nikolaieff and 13 alleged accomplices were also executed. The court statement declared that these were members of a secret organization seeking by violent means to overthrow the present leaders in Russia and establish the so- called Zinovieff-Trotsky platform of radical communism. It was also stated that the assassin had received funds from a consul of an undisclosed foreign nation.
Trouble in Northeast Africa.- Frontier clashes between Italian and Abyssinian troops in Northeast Africa in November and December were of such violence as to constitute a real menace of war. The first episode was an attack in mid-November on the Italian Consulate at Gondar, Abyssinia, resulting in the death of one and the injury of two native consular guards. Italy demanded and received an apology and a small indemnity. The second affair, of a more serious character, occurred at Ualual, an outpost occupied by Italian troops on the unsettled frontier between Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland. It appeared that a British Abyssinian boundary commission, having completed its frontier adjustments, was engaged in surveying pasturage in the Ualual region. It had secured permission from the Italian government, but word of this had not reached the Italian officer in the field. The commission, with its guard of 1,000 Abyssinian troops, was held up at Ualual, and on December 5 a fight occurred in which 30 of the Italian force were killed and 60 wounded, and the Abyssinians suffered considerably greater casualties. Responsibility for the conflict was in dispute, the Italian government demanding an apology and refusing arbitration, and the Abyssinian government taking the ground that Italy was the aggressor and that the encounter occurred in Abyssinian territory. Both nations reported to the League of Nations, but avoided a direct request for League action.
The affair was given some added significance by various rumors associated with it, such as that France had given Italy a a free hand in African colonial expansion in return for favors in the Balkans that valuable oil fields had been found in the disputed area, and that Italy was disturbed by Japanese trade development in the Red Sea region and by the appointment of Japanese instructors for the Emperor Haile Selassie’s army.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Chaco Peace Plan Fails.—The peace Plan worked out by the League Chaco Commission last November and submitted to the two South American belligerents was accepted by Bolivia without reservations, but on December 18 was definitely rejected by Paraguay. The rejection was accornpanied by a considerable array of reasons, stressing the inadequacy of the truce arrangements, the non-provision of means for determining the original aggressor, and the extent of territory to be submitted to arbitration. But behind these reasons lay the fact of Paraguay’s success in the present campaign, and the prospect that it might soon put her in a position to secure peace on her own terms.
It was estimated that at the close of November each nation had a force in the field amounting to about 40,000 but that view of recent losses Bolivia’s strength consisted largely of raw levies. The Paraguayan troops were reported as converging from various directions on the Bolivian base at Villa Montes, the fall of which would lay open the Bolivian oil fields and Probably end the war.
Though the League peace plan is at least temporarily in abeyance, it is interesting to note the position taken by the United States regarding the measures there proposed. In brief the plan called for (1) a general advisory committee representing 23 League and non-League nations, (2) a committee of neighboring states to set up a neutral zone between the belligerents, and (3) another committee of American states to meet at Buenos Aires and attempt conciliation between the two nations, provided the peace plan was accepted. In response to an invitation to appoint representatives to each of these committees, the American State Department declined to take part in the work of the first committee because of non-membership in the League, but promised “to maintain informal contact.” It consented to appoint a delegate to the second committee, but without power to vote or commit the United States except under specific instructions. In the work of the third committee—a continuation of the old committee of American neutrals which met at Washington—it agreed to participate fully.
New Tariff Agreements.—At the close of December the U. S. State Department announced the practical completion of new commercial treaties with Brazil, Colombia, and Haiti, providing in general lower duties on coffee and other imports to the United States in return for more favorable treatment of American exports. The new treaties have been revised so as to bring them within the power delegated to the President to negotiate reciprocal tariff pacts, and thus will not require ratification by the Senate. Negotiations for trade treaties are in progress also with Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and with five Central American states, and are soon to be taken up with Finland and Holland.
FAR EAST
Report on Japan’s Mandates.—Preliminary information regarding the report of the League of Nations Mandates Commission, to be presented to the Council in January, indicated that an unfavorable opinion would be there expressed regarding Japan’s exercise of authority in her Pacific mandates, as indicated by testimony before the commission. As regards Japan’s retention of the mandate islands after her withdrawal from the League, it was believed that the chairman of the commission, M. Benes, would advise reference of the question to a special commission of jurists, whose recommendations would be laid before the League Assembly next September.