NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FROM JULY 10 TO AUGUST 10
Prepared by Professor Allan Westcott, U. S. Naval Academy
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT AND FAR EAST
President Harding Proposes Conference.—On July lo the U. S. State Department issued the following announcement of negotiations undertaken for a conference on limitation of armament and the settlement of problems in the Pacific and Far East:
The President, in view of the far-reaching importance of the question of limitation of armament, has approached with informal but definite inquiries the group of powers heretofore known as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, that is. Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, to ascertain whether it would be agreeable to them to take part in a conference on this subject, to be held in Washington at a time to be mutually agreed upon. If the proposal is found to be acceptable, formal invitations for such a conference will be issued.
It is manifest that the question of limitation of armament has a close relation to Pacific and Far Eastern problems, and the President has suggested that the powers especially interested in these problems should undertake in connection with this conference the consideration of all matters bearing upon their solution with a view to reaching a common understanding with respect to principles and policies in the Far East. This has been communicated to the powers concerned, and China has also been invited to take part in the discussion relating to Far Eastern problems.
Favorable replies were at once received from France, Great Britain, Italy, and China, and later from Japan. In the Netherlands the feeling was expressed that in view of that nation's large possessions in the East Indies, she should also have been included among the nations invited, but the American Government felt the necessity of keeping the conference small enough to work effectively. After further inquiries, Armistice Day, Nov. 11, 1921, was suggested as a suitable date for opening the conference, and this date was accepted by the nations concerned. The Soviet Government issued a protest because of the failure to include the Siberian Republic, and declared that it would not be bound by any decisions reached by the conference.
Japan Seeks to Limit Scope.—To Japan the plan of a conference, not only upon disarmament, but upon Pacific questions as well, apparently came as a surprise. Her first reply was favorable as regarded disarmament, but requested information as to the scope and nature of subjects to be discussed in connection with the Pacific and Far East. In reply, the
American Government on July 23 suggested that Japan should not press
for an immediate decision as to the subjects to be discussed, but should
leave the precise agenda of the conference for later adjustment. Japan's
final acceptance on July 27 was expressed as follows:
The Japanese Government, have taken note of the contents of the American memorandum of July 23, received through the American Charge d'Affaires, in reply to the Japanese memorandum of July 13, on the subject of a conference on the limitation of armaments to be held at Washington.
It has been brought to the knowledge of the Japanese Government that the Government of the United States is willing to proceed with exchanges of opinion regarding the agenda prior to the meeting of the conference and that it considers it advisable to adjust in that agenda the nature and scope of the Pacific and Far Eastern questions to be discussed at the proposed conference. The Japanese Government, on that understanding, are happy to be able to inform the American Government that it is their intention gladly to accept an invitation for a conference which shall embrace the discussion of the Pacific and Far Eastern questions.
The Japanese Government have been made aware through the communications and the published statement of the American Government and the conversations between the Secretary of State and Baron Shidehara that the propositions of the American Government to discuss the Pacific and Far Eastern problems is based on the close bearing they have on the question of the limitation of armaments, which is the original and principal aim of the conference, and that therefore the main object of discussing these problems is to reach a common understanding in regard to general principles and policies in the Pacific and the Far East. Desiring, as they do, to contribute to the establishment of an enduring peace and to the advancement of human welfare, the Japanese Government earnestly hope that the proposed conference may attain the expected results, and their ideals may therefore be brought nearer to realization.
In order to ensure the success of the conference, the Japanese Government deem it advisable that the agenda thereof should be arranged in accordance with the main object of the discussions as above defined, and that introduction therein of problems such as are of sole concern to certain particular powers or such matters that may be rewarded accomplished facts should be scrupulously avoided.
Yap Cables to United States.—Washington, July 29.—Secretary Hughes has written a letter to President Harding on the subject of communications facilities in the Pacific, in which, in addition to dealing with the needs of that situation he asserts his belief that it is probable the cable from Guam to Yap will be allocated to the Government of the United States.
The Secretary is hopeful that there will be an early and mutually satisfactory settlement of the controversy that existed for some time over the disposition of the former German cables radiating from the Island of Yap.—N. Y. Times, 30 July 1921.
Preliminary Conference Abandoned.—Following Great Britain's acceptance of the conference invitation, the difficulty arose that the premiers of Australia and New Zealand, who were deeply concerned in the settlement of eastern questions, would be unable owing to the meeting of their parliaments to attend a conference held in the autumn of this year. Inquiries were therefore made as to the possibility of a smaller preliminary conference, but the United States did not view favorably the idea of two separate meetings. The surmise was made that Japan desired the earlier smaller gathering in order that certain Pacific questions might be settled before the general meeting. The British version of these negotiations for an earlier conference was given as follows in a summary issued by the Imperial Conference of Premiers:
"In accordance with the suggestion which was believed to have been made by the United States Government that the conference on disarmament should be preceded by conversations or consultations between the powers principally concerned in the future of the Far East and the Pacific, the Imperial Conference, anxious that for the Anglo-Japanese agreement there should be substituted some larger arrangement between the three great powers concerned, namely, the United States, Japan and Great Britain, and holding the firm conviction that the later discussions on disarmament, to which they attached transcendent importance, could best be made effective by a previous mutual understanding on Pacific questions between these powers, discussed these preliminary conversations or consultations, which the United States Government had in principle agreed should be held in London.
"When it transpired that there was some misunderstanding as to the nature of the suggested preliminary conversations, the British Government, in a desire to remove any possible misconception and to meet what it believed to be the United States view, volunteered to attend a meeting on the other side of the Atlantic, at which the agenda of the Washington conference could be discussed.
"Premier Lloyd George, Marquis Curzon and the Dominion Premiers were prepared to attend such a meeting, if invited by the United States Government. Japan also had signified her willingness to attend. The United States Government, however, did not favor the idea, which accordingly was dropped.
"At no stage was it suggested that the result of such consultation should either anticipate the work or tie the hands of the Washington conference. On the other hand, the Imperial Conference made the proposal because it was anxious to remove every possible obstacle from the path of the Washington meeting, which it desired to see attended with complete success."
Anglo-Japanese Pact Continues Indefinitely.—It now appears that the Anglo-Japanese Treaty will continue indefinitely, until formally denounced by either power. Premier Lloyd George's statement in Parliament on July 11 summarizing the work of the Imperial Conference explained the situation thus:
"The object of our discussion was to find some means to limit the danger of heavy naval expenditure in the Pacific and remove those evils which tend to limit the development of our legitimate interests in the Far East. We had to ascertain our position in regard to the Anglo-Japanese agreement in view of the decision of the League of Nations. We had to consider the position of the agreement. There was some doubt as to whether the agreement had lapsed.
"The question was referred to the Lord Chancellor, and he, with the law officers of the Crown, came to the conclusion that the agreement remained in existence for one year after it had been formally denounced. It follows, therefore, that the Anglo-Japanese alliance remains in force until it is denounced, and will only lapse at the expiration of twelve months after notice of denunciation has been given.
"It is the desire of the British Empire and of Japan that the agreement should be brought into complete harmony with the Covenant of the League of Nations, and where the one is inconsistent with the other the terms of the Covenant shall prevail. Notice to this effect has now been given to the League."
MEETING OF SUPREME COUNCIL
Allies Divided Over Silesia.—During the latter part of July serious differences of policy developed between Great Britain and France regarding the settlement of the Silesian question. On July 20 the British Government proposed an immediate meeting of the Supreme Council. The French Government objected to a conference at that time, stated that it intended to send more troops to Silesia, and suggested that Great Britain do the same. The idea of independent action on the part of France was sharply opposed by Great Britain.
London, July 28.—A situation of serious difficulty in the relations between Great Britain and France has arisen out of the discussions regarding Upper Silesia. The French Government has addressed to London a note in which the British position is described as an "unfriendly attitude" and a reply has been drafted in which it is stated that persistence in the French policy may provoke a rupture of the Entente between the two countries which contributed to the allied victory in the war.
Reception of the French note created consternation in British diplomatic circles. Conversations which had been carried on between the Foreign Office here and the Quai d’Orsay had not conveyed any suggestion that the different points of view in regard to Upper Silesia could not be brought into harmony by frank discussion. Britain wanted an early meeting of the Supreme Council. France held that before the Supreme Council made its decision on Upper Silesian partition questions, allied troops should be reinforced so as to preclude the possibility of that decision being disputed by the local populations or, as the French plainly suggested, by German volunteer forces.
The British idea was that trouble, if there was trouble, would be more likely to arise from Polish dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Supreme Council, but on the whole it was held here to be improbable that there would be any serious opposition. Free and frank discussion of the problem was, it was thought, calculated to clear the air.
The French note received this morning put a different complexion on the affair. It was couched in language which London has not been accustomed to hear from Paris.
A Cabinet Council was summoned. The Dominion Premiers were invited to attend, seeing that their countries had valorously responded to the call which went forth to the world when German militarism menaced the continent of Europe. The Dominion Premiers were of one mind with regard to the present situation, where a new militarism threatens the continent. The British Empire will not march with France if it is a question of creating in Europe a new regime of force.
Council Meeting on August 8.—The difficulties of the Allies were finally settled by agreement upon a meeting of Supreme Council on August 8. France in the meantime promised not to send reinforcements to Silesia without the consent of the Allies, and Germany, in response to an Allied note of Aug. 3, agreed to permit the transport of troops across Germany upon the joint request of the three Allied European powers.
GERMANY
Light Penalties at Leipsic Trials.—Following the protest and withdrawal of French representatives early in July, the Leipsic Court continued the trial of war criminals accused by Great Britain and Belgium. The Belgian Government expressed great dissatisfaction at what was regarded as the complete travesty of justice in the proceedings. In the British press the view was expressed that, considering the unprecedented character of the trials, the light penalties were not to be regarded as wholly inadequate or without moral effect.
Peace Negotiations with United States.—It was announced in Washington on July 19 that the American Commissioner in Berlin had been requested to make inquiries of the German Government as to a suitable method of reopening diplomatic and commercial relations. A proclamation of peace by President Harding, according to press reports, was regarded as an appropriate first step. Such a proclamation, it was thought would have no effect in restoring German property seized in America, at least not without further action by Congress.
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
Ireland Considers British Terms.—In accordance with previous arrangement, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Eamon de Valera met in London on July 14, to discuss possible terms for a settlement of the Irish question. Later conferences were attended also by Premier Craig of Ulster, who left London, however, on July 18, stating that Ulster would insist upon a status separate from southern Ireland.
Mr. de Valera on July 21 was given a brief written statement, said to contain not more than nine or ten heads, setting forth the definite proposals of the British Government. It was understood that these offered substantially self government for Ireland similar to that of Canada and South Africa, with only reservations of a naval and military character due to the closeness of Ireland to the center of the Empire. Upon his return to Ireland Mr. de Valera submitted these terms to Sinn Fein leaders, by whom in subsequent weeks they were given close scrutiny. British papers stated on Aug. 2 that the terms would probably be acted upon by a full meeting of the Dail Eirann, or Irish National Assembly, for which purpose the 36 members of that body in prison would be released. Upon his return to South Africa, General Smuts wrote to Mr. de Valera strongly approving the British offer and urging its acceptance:
The Daily Chronicle commenting this morning (July 23) on the report that the British offer of dominion home rule to Ireland reserves control of the army, navy and air force in Ireland, says the reservation "corresponds to geographical necessity which renders it necessary for the strategic defense of the British isles to be planned, controlled and maintained as a whole. We have difficulty in believing that it should offer any stumbling block to intelligent Sinn Feiners who except from directly anti-British motive could have no ground to prefer a petty Irish army and navy under separate control."
The outstanding crux of the problem, The Chronicle goes on, seems still to be in the relations of southern Ireland and northern.
"If southern Ireland," it says, "gives up the idea of controlling northern Ireland by force to enter a single Irish polity there can be peace tomorrow on the broadest basis of liberty for South and North alike and with the fairest hopes of their eventual voluntary reunion. If on the other hand counsels of force prevailed, not only would the immediate hope of peace vanish, but ultimate mutual reconciliation of North and South would be pushed away into far remoter future."
British Note on Oil Restrictions.—A final British memorandum on the control of oil in all British dominions was sent to the United States Government on April 21 and published on July 5 in a British White Paper. The memorandum states that Great Britain is second only to the United States and (in normal times) Russia in oil consumption, 90% of her navy being at present oil fired, her imports of oil in 1920 amounting to 3,368,000 tons, of which 68% came from the United States and a total of 98% from foreign countries. In Canada and Trinidad oil concessions are restricted to national companies, and the same is true in Egypt, but elsewhere throughout the British Empire, according to the memorandum, there are no handicaps on foreign concerns. Of the Mesopotamian and Palestine mandatories, it is said that "while there was no intention of discriminating against non-British interests, account must be taken of legitimate rights acquired by British companies before the war." The memorandum points out that the United States is taking a chief share in the development of Mexican oil fields and is sure to play a leading part in the opening up of Central and South American fields.
RUSSIA
Soviet Will Disregard Conference Action.—Riga, Latvia, July 22 (Associated Press).—Soviet Russia's note of protest against the failure to extend her an invitation to the Washington conference on Far Eastern questions, handed to the American Charge at Stockholm yesterday, declares that the Moscow Government will not recognize any decisions reached at a conference at which it is not represented.
The note, which was signed by M. Tchitcherin, the Soviet Commissary for Foreign Affairs, protests also against the lack of an invitation for the Far Eastern Republic. The Soviet Government reserves complete freedom of action, it declares.
The Soviet note was sent not only to the United States, but also to Great Britain, France, China and Japan.
Relief Conditioned on Release of Prisoners.—In response to the appeal of Maxim Gorky of the Russian famine relief committee, Herbert Hoover as head of the American Relief Association sent a note on July 25 declaring that American relief in Russia would be granted only upon the release of all American prisoners and the fulfillment of other conditions. For the purpose of securing a written agreement to this effect from the Soviet authorities, Mr. W. L. Brown, the European Director of American Relief, started for Riga on July 31. It was calculated that the American relief body could care for 1,000,000 starving children and invalids.
A demand for the release of American prisoners was also made by Secretary of State Hughes through the American Consul at Reval, as follows:
"The American Government is advised that, despite the repeated efforts of Dr. Nansen on its behalf to secure the release of the American prisoners in Russia, they are still held in a most serious plight.
"In the name of humanity the American Government demands of the Soviet authorities that these prisoners be at once released. It is manifestly impossible for the American authorities to countenance measures for relief of the distress in Russia while our citizens are detained."
Prisoners Released.—The Soviet Government issued several statements to the effect that it had made no appeal for aid. On August 6, however, it was confirmed that the 7 or 8 American prisoners held at Moscow had been released and would at once be sent across the border.
Russian Famine Conditions.—A statement issued by the U. S. Department of Commerce on Aug. 1 declared that the famine in Russia was most acute in the Volga valley north of the Caspian Sea, but that production in various parts of Russia had been cut down 50% or more. The total grain production for Soviet Russia in 1921 will be 4,320,000 bushels, as against 7,614,000 in 1920, and the potato and oil seeds crops are cut in half. In northern Russia the shortage of food is chiefly due to the general decadence of agriculture and the breakdown of transportation from the south and east. "Industry in general has decreased over 90 per cent.''
ITALY
Proposed Papal State.—Rome, July 17.—On the eve of the reopening of the Chamber when the Cabinet will present its program to Parliament the possibility of settling the vexed Roman question seems even nearer than with the former Cabinet. In the new Administration the Catholic Party has great influence, there being three Ministers and several Under Secretaries of State belonging to that party. One of the most important portfolios is entrusted to a member of the Catholic Party, the Ministry of Justice, which deals with all relations between Church and State and has under its jurisdiction all ecclesiastic affairs.
Many say that question might be solved according to the plan suggested by Cardinal Bourne, according to which the Pope would receive a tract of land on which he would have all rights and prerogatives of a king. The Cardinal stated that many lords and land owners in England possess large estates where they practically reign supreme. Why should not the Pope be treated in like manner?—N. Y. Times, 17 July, 1921.
BALKANS AND NEAR EAST
Balkan Alliance Against Greece.—Paris, July 10.—A sudden change in the Near Eastern kaleidoscope has switched the center of interest from Asia Minor to Thrace. The cause of the trouble is a Turko-Bulgarian plot to evict the Greeks from the territory north of Constantinople allotted to them by the Treaty of Sevres.
It is learned from a trustworthy source that it is anxiety about this region, far more than fear of a Turkish advance upon Constantinople from Ismid, that motivated the British naval concentration at the Turkish capital and the troop movements reported from Malta. Assurances of Bulgarian support also are said to be the reason Mustapha Kemal suddenly imposed impossible conditions for a meeting with British representatives which he himself had requested a few days before.
It is a matter of common knowledge in the Near East that both the Turks and Bulgars are bitterly dissatisfied by the attribution of Thrace to the Greeks. The former claim that it puts their capital at the mercy of a hostile advance and the latter that it imposes an intolerable hardship by cutting them off completely from the sea. Accordingly, both parties have been intriguing most busily the last weeks. The quarter in which their activities have been directed has been Serbia, which not only possesses the best fighting force in the Balkans, but is inspired by keen personal hostility to King Constantine and the schemes he is believed to entertain to dominate Constantinople.
Between the Serbs and Bulgars Macedonia has always been a bone of contention, but months ago the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Dimitrioff, paid a visit to the Serbian capital to propose a solution of the problem. The plan suggested was that Macedonia should become an independent State whose port-way capital should be Saloniki. Nor was this all. Serbia and Bulgaria, both of whose nationals bulk large in the Macedonian population, should form a sort of triple confederation with the new State—perhaps actually a federation under one central government. In either event there was to be no tariff barriers between the three neighbors, and thus Bulgaria would obtain the free access to the sea which she so ardently desires.
Evidently this plan, which is reported to have found high favor in Serbian eyes, could only be carried out at the expense of the Greeks. It was therefore found desirable to enlist the support of the Turks by offering them Adrianople and Eastern Thrace.—N.Y. Times. 10 July, 1921.
Successful Greek Offensive Against Turks.—The Greek offensive against Turkish Nationals in Asia Minor, which was started in the middle of July, resulted in a general pushing back of the Turkish forces. It was reported on July 26, but apparently without foundation, that Mustapha Kemal had made peace overtures through the Allies. The Turkish losses at that date were said to amount to about 60,000 killed, wounded, and prisoners.
LATIN AMERICA
Panama Appeals to Argentina.—Following Panama's appeal to Argentina and other South American states in the matter of her boundary dispute with Costa Rica, the U. S. Government on July 18 addressed a memorandum to Argentina setting forth its reasons for considering the White award binding, and the duty of the United States to see that Panama fulfilled her international obligations. Panama in a note to the United States made public on July 25 urged that her dispute be referred to the Hague Tribunal.
Mexico Invites Claims Delegates.—Mexico City, July 13 (Associated Press).—All countries whose nationals have suffered damages from Mexican revolutions have been invited by President Obregon to appoint delegates who will meet Mexican representatives and form a permanent commission to pass upon claims. The invitation was issued in the form of a Presidential decree promulgated last night, and it will be sent to all interested nations by the Foreign Office.
President Obregon's decree is regarded in official circles here as a most important step in the President's reconstruction program and as indicating a sincere desire on the part of the Government to set Mexico's house in order.
The Mexican Claims Commission has made no recent announcement of the amount of the claims filed with it, but late last year the total was given as more than 32,000,000 pesos, of which more than 20,000,000 pesos represented claims for foreigners.
Tampico, July 13 (Associated Press).—Resumption of operations in the Tampico district by oil companies is expected in official circles here. Drilling permits are being granted daily by the Government, and some companies have continued work during the past troublesome month without discharging a single man. It was declared yesterday by a Government official that the situation here was not a local problem, but was the outcome of world conditions. He said that the new taxes placed on petroleum exports had but secondary influence on operations in this district. General Arnulfo R. Gomez, commander of the Mexican military forces in the oil region, expressed regret yesterday that the United States cruisers Sacramento and Cleveland sailed from Tampico, as he had planned to entertain the officers of the warships, with whom he had a cordial meeting.
The General further stated he was fully prepared to protect the lives and interests of North Americans, as well as those of any other nationals.