FROM MAY 7 TO JUNE 7
EUROPEAN DEBT NEGOTIATIONS
United States Requests Settlement.—In the third week of May the American State Department acting through the United States ambassadors in foreign capitols, and as a channel of transmission for the United States debt Commission, suggested to the French, Italian, Belgium and other European governments in debt to the United States the desirability of appointing debt funding commissions for the adjustment of these debts. This publicly announced step had been preceded by informal conversations with France and other powers.
France Considers Debt Problem.—On May 15 it was announced that the French Cabinet had delegated Foreign Minister Briand and Finance Minister Caillaux to consult experts and create what would be in effect a French funding committee to work out definite proposals to submit to the United States. The present ministry in France thus manifested a serious intention to reach a solution of the problem, which has already proved embarrassing to France in matters of foreign policy. Suggestions have appeared to the effect that the British Government would not object to terms to France more favorable than those accorded to Great Britain.
Belgium Appoints Commission.—It was announced on May 30 that the Belgian Government had appointed former Premier Theunis as chairman of the Belgian Debt Commission, and that the commission would depart for the United States at an early date. In addition to her American debt of $480,000,000, Belgium owes $503,000,000 to Great Britain and $584,000,000 to France. Belgium contends that payment of her indebtedness has been made contingent upon payments from Germany, but it is the view of the United States authorities that such a correlation has not been conceded.
EUROPEAN “SECURITY” NEGOTIATIONS
Agreement Blocked Over Rhine Zone.—During May, Great Britain, France and Germany continued to consider the possibilities of a tri-partite security agreement. A compact which should include Germany was preferred by a majority of the present British Ministry over an agreement between Great Britain and France alone. Germany had already professed willingness to guarantee the security of France’s eastern frontier, provided Germany was given promise of a possible rectification of her own eastern boundaries. France, however, bound already by agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia and other states of eastern Europe, found it difficult to enter into an agreement which, while assuring her own safety, would leave her powerless to interfere in behalf of her allies and would give Germany virtually a free hand in eastern Europe. On the other hand, German authorities characterized as “unbelievable” the demand of France for the right to march across the Rhineland to aid her Polish and Czechoslovak allies.
Specifically, France hesitated to agree that, as Germany proposed, the neutralized strip along the Rhine should serve not only to secure France from German attack, but also to secure Germany under all circumstances against French action. The views of the French Government were set forth in a note to Germany penned by M. Briand in the latter part of May.
Germany’s Eastern Frontier.—A memorandum on British foreign policy, prepared by the British Foreign Office last February and intended only for presentation, to the Cabinet, appeared in the press on May 2. In this memorandum, the British Foreign Office frankly stated that “it may be possible to revise by European agreement the dangerous conditions involved in the Silesian Settlement and the Polish Corridor.” This statement indicated not only a British tendency to recognize the validity of Germany’s grievances regarding her eastern boundaries, but also the menace to the peace of Europe in this situation. The desire of Germany for a union with Austria, however, met with the united opposition of both Great Britain and France.
German Disarmament.—In the midst of security negotiations, the Allied powers agreed upon the terms of a note to Germany regarding her non-fulfillment of the disarmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and this note was transmitted on June 2. The belief was expressed that Germany would be able to carry on the requirements by next September, and that evacuation of the Cologne area would then be possible. The note called for dissolution of the German General Staff, dissolution of all secret organizations, dismantling of former munitions factories in the Ruhr, and demilitarization of the police.
The Reparations Commission reported on May 29 that Germany had carried out the terms of the Dawes plan.
FRANCE
The Riff War.—During May it appeared clear that the hostilities between French forces and the Riff tribes in Morrocco would be a long-drawn-out affair. This is explained partly by the fact that France by international agreement is not permitted to carry hostilities within the Spanish zone where the Riffs have their strongholds, and partly by the fact that the political opposition of the socialist and Communist parties in France restrains the Government from an aggressive campaign. In these circumstances, and pending the arrival of reinforcements, General Lyauty established a strong defensive line north of Fez. A special envoy was sent to Spain to negotiate for Franco-Spanish cooperation and a stricter blockade on munitions of war reaching the Riffs through the Spanish lines.
GERMANY
Hindenburg Inaugurated.—General von Hindenburg took oath of office as President of the German Republic before the President of the Reichstag at noon on May 12. On his entry into Berlin previous to his inauguration, the president-elect was greeted by an immense throng estimated at 500,000 people. Following the ceremony of inauguration, the President reviewed his guard of honor, composed of an honor company of his old regiment, the Third Prussian Guards.
On May 20 the Reichstag supported the Luther Ministry by a confidence vote of 214 to 129 in questions of internal policy.
German Foreign Policy.—Berlin, 18 May.—Bitter criticism of the Entente attitude toward Germany, especially regarding the continued non-evacuation of the Cologne zone, was expressed with his customary vehemence today by Foreign Minister Stresemann, in his long-awaited speech before the Reichstag on German foreign policy.
The tone of Herr Stresemann’s speech, which lasted more than an hour and a half, was contained in the following statement:
“The dispute between the Entente and Germany does not hinge on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of this or that clause of the Versailles Treaty. It hinges on the question of whether respect and equality can be denied for an indefinite period to a cultured nation of 60,000,000 souls.”
Referring to the question of Germany’s eastern frontiers, which has so agitated Europe recently, Herr Stresemann denied that Germany’s proposals implied any hostility toward Poland, or foreshadowed a German attempt to alter the eastern frontiers by force, but he added that Germany never would agree to the permanency of those frontiers. In conclusion, he emphasized Germany’s willingness to negotiate toward a solution of the pending difficulties, adding, however, that all efforts must fail unless other nations were inspired by the same honorable desires.
Referring to Germany’s entry into the League of Nations, Herr Stresemann repeated what German spokesmen already have stated: viz., that a disarmed Germany cannot undertake any warlike move such as would be possible to nations which have not disarmed. This German view has not been taken into account at Geneva by the League’s Council, he said.
Herr Stresemann then reiterated the German Government’s intention to carry out the Dawes plan. So far, Germany has fulfilled all of her obligations under the plan, he said, and she means to continue doing so, despite changes in her Government. He also took up the recent improvement in the relations between Germany and other nations. Among these he especially enumerated the United States, Mexico and Japan. The United States, he declared, is the most active nation in furthering the economic restoration of Europe, adding that no nation could view this American activity with more pleasure than Germany. _
“I am glad to state that our relations with the United States are entirely satisfactory,” declared Herr Stresemann.
ARMS TRAFFIC CONFERENCE
Decisions of Conference.—The Arms Traffic Conference which assembled in Geneva early in May with representatives of forty-four nations, continued in session throughout the month. The business of the conference was to consider and revise the terms of a draft convention to regulate international traffic in munitions of war which had already been formulated by a committee of experts. The convention as finally agreed upon will be submitted to the powers, and according to its present terms will go into effect when ratified by twelve of the most important arms-producing countries. In general, the smaller, non-producing nations oppose the convention, since it will tend to limit their sources for munitions of war.
The Draft Convention establishes three categories of arms: (1) arms and munitions exclusively designed for use in land, sea, or air warfare; (2) arms capable of use for either military or other purposes; (3) arms of no military value. Among matters tentatively settled in the conference may be noted the following:
- Warships, submarines, airplanes, armored trains, gunpowder explosives, and most types of revolvers were transferred from the first category (which cannot be exported without government license) to the second category.
- In deference to the United States, it was decided that no central bureau under the League of Nations should be established for the collection and publication of arms traffic statistics, but that each producing nation should adopt a license system and publish its own statistics.
- A geographic zone was tentatively mapped out to include thirty-three nations (but not Turkey or Persia) in which arms traffic would be restricted.
In general the United States delegation was successful in eliminating from the clauses of the proposed convention any direct reference to utilization of the League of Nations. The conference revealed also the unwillingness of European powers to restrict arms traffic in view of the unwillingness of Russia to enter into the agreement, and the absence of any general European security compact. The producing nations hesitated to hamper private arms manufacturers to the extent that their factories would fall into disuse and be unavailable in time of war.