NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FROM MAY 5 TO JUNE 5
Prepared by Allan Westcott, Professor, U. S. Naval Academy
OUTCOME OF GENOA CONFERENCE
Russian Problem Unsolved.—The break-down of the Genoa Conference for a general economic settlement in Europe was made certain when on May 11 the Russian delegates presented a long argumentative reply unfavorable to the terms offered by the other powers. In the hope of foreign loan, Russia had been willing to accept most of the conditions laid down by the Allies, including recognition of war and pre-war debts, and had hesitated only over the restoration of property. Failing definite promises of a loan, Russia's attitude changed. The Russian reply declared that the purpose of the powers in haggling over private property was in reality to destroy the communistic system, that political questions, such as Russia's relations with Turkey and Rumania, had been needlessly injected into the discussion; and finally that governments arising out of revolution could rightfully repudiate the obligations of governments overthrown.
Plan for Discussion at The Hague.—Following the failure of Russian negotiations at Genoa, Premier Lloyd George proposed that these negotiations be resumed at The Hague. According to this plan the nations represented at Genoa, except Germany and Russia, were to send representatives from which a commission of experts would be selected to formulate a Russian policy. The experts would meet on June 16, and on June 20 present their conclusions, which would then be taken as a basis for negotiations with the Russian delegates. Upon the acceptance of this proposal by Russia the Genoa Conference ended on May 17.
The agreement contains six clauses, summarized as follows:
Clause I.—Provides for the appointment of a commission by the powers to examine again the divergencies existing between the Soviet Government and other Governments, and with a view to meeting a Russian commission having the same mandate.
Clause II.—Not later than June 20 the names of the powers represented on the non-Russian commission and the names of the members of this commission will be transmitted to the Soviet Government, and, reciprocally, the names of the members of the Russian commission will be communicated to the other Governments.
Clause III.—The questions to be treated by these commissions will comprise debts, private properties and credits.
Clause IV.—The members of the two commissions must be at The Hague on June 26.
Clause V.—The two commissions will strive to reach joint resolutions on the questions mentioned in Clause III.
Clause VI.—To permit the commissions to work peacefully, and also to re-establish mutual confidence, the Soviet Government and its allied republics on the one side and the other governments on the other, pledge themselves to abstain from any act of aggression and subversive propaganda. The pledge for abstaining from any act of aggression will be based upon the present status quo, and will remain in force for a period of four months after the conclusion of the work of the commission.
The pledge concerning propaganda will oblige the Governments not to interfere in any way in the internal affairs of other states, and not to assist, financially or by any other means, political organizations in other countries, and will oblige them to suppress in their territory "any attempt to commit acts of violence in other states or aiming to disturb the territorial or political status quo."
The final adoption of the truce compact was without incident except that Lithuania inquired whether the truce would prevent powers other than Russian from attacking each other. In other words Lithuania was anxious to know whether Poland would be prevented from attacking Lithuania in connection with the dispute over Vilna or the other boundary questions between the two nations. Assurance was given the Lithuanians that the peace would be general.
United States Refuses to Join Conference.—When the conference at The Hague was proposed, it was hoped that the United States would send a delegation, and an invitation was at once extended. On May 15, however. Secretary Hughes declined the invitation in a reply the main part of which reads as follows:
The American people have given the most tangible evidence of their unselfish interest in the economic recuperation of Russia, and this Government would be most reluctant to abstain from any opportunity of helpfulness.
This Government, however, is unable to conclude that it can helpfully participate in the meeting at The Hague, as this would appear to be a continuance under a different nomenclature of the Genoa Conference and destined to encounter the same difficulties if the attitude disclosed in the Russian memorandum of May 11 remains unchanged.
The inescapable and ultimate question would appear to be the restoration of productivity in Russia, the essential conditions of which are still to be secured and must in the nature of things be provided within Russia herself.
While this Government has believed that these conditions are reasonably clear, it has always been ready to join with the Governments extending the present invitation in arranging for an inquiry by experts into the economic situation in Russia and the necessary remedies. Such an inquiry would approximately deal with the economic prerequisites of that restoration of production in Russia, without which there would appear to be lacking any sound basis for credits.
It should be added that this Government is most willing to give serious attention to any proposals issuing from the Genoa Conference or any later conference, but it regards the present suggestions in apparent response to the Russian memorandum of May 11, as lacking, in view of the terms of that memorandum, in the definiteness which would make possible the concurrence of this Government in the proposed plan.
Attitude of France.—At the Genoa Conference the solidarity of France and Great Britain was seriously threatened by their divergent views on Russia. France, followed by Belgium, Poland, and -the Little Entente, held that what the Soviets had taken from foreigners they must return, while the English were willing to accept possession, with technical ownership vested in the Soviet Government. When the Hague Conference was proposed, the French and Belgian delegates felt it necessary to leave the decision to their respective governments. On June 3, Premier Poincare published a memorandum stating the French position. The memorandum declared that first of all Russia should be forced to withdraw her note of May 11, and then should accept flatly recognition of her war debt, prewar debt, and return of naturalized property formerly owned by foreigners. Russia must drop her counter-claims, and realize that she can get no government loan now. Then and then only should the experts take up the problem of help for Russia.
Speaking before the Chamber of Deputies on June 1, M. Poincare declared that while he did not seek to break the Entente, France must be treated as an equal and not "dragged along at England's tail." As regards the Hague Conference, France, he said, had reserved entire freedom of action. Without the United States the inquiry would be necessarily incomplete, and the reconstruction of Europe without the great creditor republic would be chimerical.
ITALY AND THE NEAR EAST
Russo-Italian Trade Agreement.—In accepting the proposal for a conference at The Hague, Italy as well as Japan and other states reserved the right to conclude trade agreements with Russia which were already under negotiation. Accordingly, on May 24, Italy and Russia signed a commercial treaty completing the provisional accord of last December. Russia was ready to grant even more extensive concessions with the idea of showing what the other powers had lost by their attitude at Genoa. Italy, however, was unwilling to enter into any agreement which would sacrifice her moral obligations to her allies.
Jugo-Slav Agreement with Italy.—Rome, May 8.—While the delegates of Italy and Jugo-Slavia are striving to reach a political agreement, an important commercial and financial pact has been signed at Genoa, as a result of long negotiations, according to the newspaper Italie. The agreement creates a union between Jugo-Slav and Italian banks and is expected to facilitate a further interchange of goods, an interchange which already exceeds 1,000,000,000 lire yearly.
The agreement was signed by Italian deputies on behalf of a group of banks in Lombardy and Venetia, and besides safeguarding Italian imports within Jugo-Slavia, it is intended to aid in the demobilization of Italian credits, amounting to several hundred million lire, subject to a moratorium in Jugo-Slavia. Adriatic ports, especially Trieste, benefit greatly from the new pact, which marks a new era in Italo-Slav relations.
An agreement on the question of Flume's difficulties is almost impossible and Jugo-Slavia is, therefore, insisting that the whole question be remitted to the arbitration of the president of Switzerland.—Christian Science Monitor, 9 May, 1922.
Investigation of Turkish Atrocities.—On May 15 Mr. Austin Chamberlain announced in the British House of Commons that Great Britain had proposed to France, Italy, and the United States a joint investigation of charges of Turkish cruelty to Greeks in Asia Minor. The charges were based chiefly on the reports of Major F. B. Yowell and Dr. M. L. Ward, American officials of Near Eastern Relief at Harpoot. According to their reports the Turkish system of deporting Greeks eastward through Harpoot was resulting in countless deaths from hardship, exposure, and cruelty.
In an interview at Constantinople on June 1, Izzet Pasha, the Turkish foreign minister, admitted that the Greek population in Asia Minor had suffered, but made counter-charges against the Greeks. He claimed that Greece would eventually be unable to support the cost of her army in Asia Minor. Admiral Bristol, American high commissioner, was quoted as saying that peace could be established in Asia Minor in only two ways—either by the western powers' maintaining a large force there, or by leaving the Turks to handle the situation with substantial guarantees for the protection of minorities.
America to Join Inquiry.—On June 3 Secretary Hughes in the following statement announced the decision of the American government to take part in the Turkish investigation:
"On May 15, 1922, a note was received from the British Ambassador referring to reports of the renewal of the deportation of Christians by the Turkish authorities at Angora and the alleged atrocities connected therewith, and communicating a proposal of the British Government that the American, British, French and Italian Governments should at once depute carefully selected officers to proceed to such places in Anatolia as might best enable them to conduct an appropriate investigation.
"In a subsequent memorandum of May 19 the British ambassador indicated that the Turkish deportations and outrages might lead to retaliatory action in territory held by the Greek forces, and suggested that the Government of the United States should join in requesting the authorities functioning in Greece to permit the dispatch of officers to regions under Greek occupation.
"In answering these communications, the secretary of state has said that the situation of the Christian minorities in Turkey has enlisted to a marked degree the sympathies of the American people and it has been noted with deep concern, that the work of benevolent and educational institutions in Turkey has steadily been hampered, that the rights which American citizens have long enjoyed, in Turkey in common with the nationals of other powers have often been disregarded and the property rights and interests of Americans and other foreigners placed in jeopardy.
"In view of the humanitarian considerations which are involved and of the desire of this Government to have adequate information through a thorough and impartial investigation of the actual conditions prevailing in Anatolia in order that this Government may determine its future policy in relation to the authorities concerned, the President is prepared to designate an officer or officers to take part in the proposed inquiry.
"In informing the British Government of the foregoing the Government of the United States has made it clear that the proposed action is limited in scope to an inquiry to obtain accurate data as to the situation in Anatolia for the information of the Governments participating therein, and has stated that this Government assumes no further obligation and enters into no commitment.
"In order to expedite the inquiry, it was at the same time suggested by this Government that officers should be designated by the respective Governments to institute inquiries concurrently in the districts respectively under Greek and Turkish occupation, and that these two commissions, upon the completion of their investigation, should unite in a comprehensive report."
MANDATES AND NAVAL TREATIES
Ratification of Naval Treaties.—It was reported from London on May 29 that while the Washington naval treaties had not yet been ratified, measures to put them into force had already been taken, such as reduction of personnel and dismantling of battleships which are to be discarded. While the treaties might be brought before Parliament for a formal vote, this was not necessary since the signature of the King was sufficient for legal ratification.
The naval treaties were reported to the French Parliament on May 30 with a reservation attached similar to that adopted by the U.S. Senate. It was stated that consideration of the treaties would occupy at least a month, and that to the agreement prohibiting submarines from attacking merchant vessels a reservation might be made declaring that a merchant vessel to be so classified must be unarmed.
America Accepts Palestine Mandate.—Washington, May 9.—A virtual agreement has been reached between the United States and Great Britain with respect to the mandated territory of Palestine. The details of the agreement to be worked out will soon be incorporated into a treaty between the two Governments.
It is expected in general that the treaty will guarantee the rights of Americans to participate on an equal footing with the nationals of Great Britain or any other country in the exploitation of the natural resources of Palestine and in its commerce and industry. This is the fundamental doctrine of this Government with respect to mandated territories, it having been enunciated both by the Wilson and Harding administrations.
The tangible rights of Americans in Palestine consist chiefly of the so-called "capitulary rights," or rights of extra territoriality conferred upon the citizens of this country by the Treaty of 1830 with Turkey, and of certain rights acquired by the Standard Oil Company in Palestine prior to the World War.—New York Times, 10 May, 1922.
French Mandates Approved.—On May 17 the United States Government announced its approval of the terms of the French mandates over Kamerun and Togoland in Africa, as well as the French mandate over Syria. Treaties with France will be negotiated similar to those with Japan over Yap and with Great Britain over Palestine. The mandate terms are to be taken up at a special meeting of the League of Nations Council not later than July 15.
Work of League Council.—The work of the League of Nations Council meeting at Geneva, which closed on May 17, was summarized as follows:
The work of the session, is declared to have been the most important since the founding of the council. Among other achievements noted are, first, the signature of the German-Polish economic treaty and the settlement of the Upper Silesian question; second, the throwing open of the Court of International Justice to the entire world, including Russia, Turkey and Mexico; third, the establishment of a financial and economic protectorate over Albania by the League of Nations; fourth, the setting of a definite date for the final disposition of the Palestine mandate, and fifth, the creation of a commission for international intellectual co-operation, with an American member.
The council also considered more than a dozen minor European questions and approved the Opium Commission's work.
It was decided by the council to hold its next meeting a week before the gathering of the General Assembly of the League of Nations, or about August 28. This date, however, is not intended to interfere with the extraordinary meeting of the council to be held probably on July 15, which will be devoted to mandates.
Ratification of Silesian Treaty.—It was reported from Genoa on May 9 that Foreign Minister Rathenau of Germany and Foreign Minister Skirmundt of Poland had accepted and signed the League of Nations Settlement of the Silesian problem. On May 30 the German Reichstag ratified the treaty, the flag on the Reichstag building appearing at half mast and the Chancellor and Cabinet in mourning.
It will be recalled that the Upper Silesian question was referred by the Supreme Council to the Council of the League of Nations after England and France were unable to agree on how the frontier between Germany and Poland should be drawn as a result of the unsatisfactory plebiscite. The council of the league drew a line and now it is accepted and instructions have been sent to the German and Polish representatives in Geneva to sign the treaty.
The document in addition to accepting the frontier is a large volume regulating the intricacies of the industrial region with in many instances raw materials and fuels in one country and factories in another, the workmen sometimes living in Poland and doing their day's work in Germany.
The treaty, modeled on the recommendation of the league agents, is to remain in force fifteen years.—New York Times, 10 May, 1922.
GERMAN REPARATIONS
Allied Demands Accepted.—The threatened reparations crisis of May 31 was avoided when on May 29 the German Government sent in an acceptable reply to the demands of the reparations commission. Germany submitted to Allied control of her finances to the extent of agreeing to turn in full and accurate budget figures to the reparations commission. Issues of paper money were to be stopped at least temporarily. Further laws were to be passed to prevent export of German capital from the country and so far as possible to force its return. On May 24 the Reichsrat adopted the compulsory loan bill (which had already passed Reichstag) providing for the raising of about one billion gold, marks. According to the German note, the success of all Germany's efforts to meet her obligations would be contingent upon the granting of an international loan.
The reparations commission unanimously accepted this reply on the part of Germany as "a sincere attempt to meet the commission's requirements," and on that basis agreed to a postponement of further German payments for the year 1922.
Bankers Consider German Loan.—An international commission of bankers, including representatives of the Allied Powers, Holland, and the United States, met under the auspices of the reparations commission at Paris on May 24 to consider the possibilities of an international loan to Germany. One of the first acts of the committee was to state that no loan could be considered until Germany met the demands of the reparations commission, and this did much to hasten the favorable German reply of May 29.
On June 1 the British representative, Sir Robert Kindersley of the Bank of England, argued that a reduction of Germany's total reparations debt was an essential condition to her negotiating an international loan, on the ground that investors would not be attracted to such a loan, unless Germany were put in a position to "see daylight" financially.
This proposal at once revealed the political difficulties attending the loan problem, since France in particular would be reluctant to consent to a reduction of the reparations debt without a corresponding reduction of her own debt to the United States and Great Britain.
France regards all international indebtedness, including reparations, as one entity. Rightly or wrongly, she regards what Germany owes her for war damage—the figure was fixed by the International Commission of Five on which she had one vote—as just as much a debt as her debt is to the United States. She is willing to reduce Germany's debt to her if her creditors reduce their claims on her. In other words, France is willing to cut down the reparations total if Great Britain and the United States reduce her debt to them.
France probably is willing to do more than make a corresponding reduction. She may be willing to follow England's example and make a sacrifice in addition to the amounts cut off her debt. But with France burdened as she is by taxation to pay for the reconstruction of what Germany destroyed it is perfectly useless to talk to her about cutting down Germany's debt to her by tens of billions of dollars for the prospect of sharing in a billion dollar loan. French public opinion would not stand for that.
Therefore if such proposed international loan is to depend on reducing the reparation figure, and it is safe to say a majority of the bankers including those representing the countries from which the money would have to come considers that necessary, then America must say yes or no to Europe's question put by Britain as to whether she will sacrifice some of her claims for the general world good. It must be recognized that as seen from this side of the Atlantic the prospects do not seem good until American public opinion sees the affair in a different light.
If it be true, as most authorities agree, that international debts are a monkey wrench in the machinery of international business, it is worth while to look at those debts. Europe owes America roughly $10,750,000,000, approximately as follows: England $4,573,000,000, France, $3,635,000,000; Italy, $1,800,000,000; Belgium, $410,000,000; Rumania, $38,000,000; Serbia, $55,000,000; Greece, $15,000,000, and Russia, $212,000,000.—New York Times, 16 May, 1922.
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
Coalition of Irish Factions.—On May 20, after prolonged negotiations, an agreement was reached between the Collins and de Valera parties in Ireland by which a trial of strength in the coming elections was avoided and a coalition government established. The agreement provided that the control of the Sinn Fein organization (and later of the Irish Free State) be vested in a coalition cabinet, the army naming the minister of defense, and the other nine members to be taken, five from the majority and four from the minority party.
It provided further that nominations for the parliamentary elections be made on June 6, and elections held on June 16, and that the candidates be put forward as from the Sinn Fein organization and be taken from the two factions in such proportion as to give each faction the same strength as before. The purpose was thus td present an actual expression of popular opinion, although other interests and organizations were left free to nominate candidates and contest the election if they so desired.
Conference in London.—In order to explain the conditions arising from the new coalition in Ireland, and also to give information regarding the new Free State Constitution, Mr. Collins, Mr. Griffiths, and other Irish leaders came to London on May 26 for conferences with the British cabinet committee in Irish affairs headed by Winston Churchill. Apparently when the conferences closed early in June the British cabinet members were satisfied with the assurances given against violation of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
Speaking in the House of Commons on May 31, Winston Churchill declared that the Collins-de Valera compact struck at the treaty, and that if de Valera refused to declare his loyalty to the treaty. Great Britain would feel at liberty if necessary to reoccupy Ireland. No deviation from the treaty, he declared, would be allowed either in strict letter or honest spirit.
In the meantime fighting and outrages continued in Belfast and along the Ulster border. On May 23 the Ulster Government issued a proclamation calling for the arrest of all members of the Irish Republican Army and similar organizations. On May 30 it was reported that Irish Republican forces had entered and established themselves within the six-county frontiers. Premier Craig of Ulster declared he would have no negotiations with the new coalition in the south. British reinforcements were being sent to Ulster, and on June 5 attacked the southern Irish forces on the Ulster frontier.
British War Figures —Speaking on May 26 at a luncheon, upon his return from Genoa, Premier Lloyd George gave some new and interesting figures as to the extent of Great Britain's participation in the war. He stated that Great Britain had mobilized, on land and sea, a total of 9,500,000 men; that between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 of these went to France; that the British dominions sent 1,600,000 men and India 1,679,000; and that the total casualties amounted to 3,266,000.
FAR EAST
Chinese Government Reorganized.—Following his victory over the Manchurian General Chang Tso-lin, General Wu Pei-fu announced his program for the unification of China and the establishment of a strong democratic government. As a first step in this program he. declared his intention to force the resignation of both President Hsu Shih-chang at Peking and Sun Yat Sen at Canton. The Peking president vacated on June 2 and was to be succeeded by General Li Yuan-hung, who was president from June, 1916, to July, 1917, when he was overthrown by the militarists. The old republican Parliament met at Tientsin for the first time since 1917.
Washington, June 1.—It is believed by the officials here that recent developments have finally broken the apparently hopeless deadlock into which China had fallen as a result of the clashing ambitions of rival factions in the north and south. Not in the last ten years have the prospects been so bright for a reunion of the country as at this moment, it is said.
This belief is based upon confidence in the integrity of the victorious General Wu-Pei-fu, and his adherence to his plan for bringing the divided sections of the country together by insisting upon the retirement not only of President Hsu at the head of the Peking Government, but of Dr. Sun Yat Sen, who claims to be president as a heritage of the old parliamentary government and holds forth in that capacity in Canton.
General Wu also has promised to efface himself and surrender the command of his armies to any president who is legally chosen by the reconvened Parliament or a constituent assembly.
It is said that if the next step on the program of the reformers can be taken soon, and the numerous provisional armies can be discharged, leaving the sole military power in the hands of the central Government, any evil of militarism afflicting China will be overcome.—New York Times, 16 March, 1922.
Japanese Leave Hankow.—On May 30 the Japanese minister at Peking notified the Chinese Government of the decision of Japan to withdraw her garrison at Hankow. Since 1911 Japan has maintained a garrison at this point to secure her interests in the Yangtse Valley. The withdrawal is in conformity with the resolution adopted in Washington to remove foreign troops from China as soon as the Chinese Government can afford protection. Ratifications of the Shantung Treaty were exchanged at Peking on June 2 and the treaty is now in full force.