Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, JAN. 26, 1932. THE LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 47, 26 January 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, JAN. 26, 1932. THE LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Statements made during last week that the Lausanne Conference on German reparations was unlikely to take place yesterday gained in substance until, at the week-end, it became apparent that representatives of the interested Governments would not be assembling. Ihability to agree on certain fundamental points appears to have been the main reason for the postponement, though there was hope in the British Foreign Office that a satisfactory agreement on questions of procedure would be evolved. Germany and France remain the two chief figures in the reparations drama, with Great Britain trying hard to produce a formula which will satisfy both parties. The proposal was made to the German Government to agree to the Hoover moratorium being prolonged for a year from June 30 next, but Dr Bruening will not retract from the position of a fortnight ago, when he declared that Germany could not pay reparations and would press for their abolition. France still refuses to believe that the ability to meet at least part of the huge losses caused by the war no longer exists in (Germany. The mere spoken word of the Chancellor does not bring conviction, while on the broader aspect of a nation’s integrity France holds that Germany’s bond should not be lightly repudiated. M. Laval’s declaration to the crowded Chamber of Deputies that morality could not be banned from international action, and the same rules of honesty in relations between men applied to international relations, struck a patriotic chord. It is a warning to Germany that solemn obligations cannot be thrust to one side without adequate reason and agreement from the other party. But, the New York Times pertinently remarks, “What good does it do to insist on a right which has been rendered obsolete by events?’’ The United States has used the disagreement to again express the view that reparations and war debts are a separate question, and has informed France that Congress as at present constituted is most unlikely to agree to an extended moratorium, and in no case would it agree to cancellation of the war debts. Obviously, France is exploring every effort to obtain payments from Germany. It is time, however, that the situation was thoroughly reviewed. A. further moratorium would give Germany breathing time, but a mere agreement to this end would not satisfy the purpose, for which delegates were to assemble at Lausanne, and would be sidestepping the problem which must be faced sooner or later —is it, not in the best interests of: the world that reparations and war debts should be either cancelled, or reduced to a level wherein pavment will not prejudice future prosperity? The Prime Ministers of Great .Britain and France are to meet • this week to

pursue their discussions. Something tangible is expected by the world, and there will be sharp disappointment if they fail to make progress towards a settlement of this European problem. A plan worked out to the satisfaction of each Government could not fail to arrest public opinion in. the United States which, notwithstanding the attitude of Congress to-day, would then surely, os it has been stated, ‘‘carefully consider any concrete plan proposed for the further postponing of war debt payments or other concrete arrangements, to meet the present emergency.” Meanwhile, what is called the “standstill agreement,” under which German short-term debts were not to be called up, is to be renewed for a year with certain modifications to meet conditions ■which may arise later.