LIST OF DOCUMENTS published in DOCUMENTEN BETREFFENDE DE BUITENLANDSE POLITIEK VAN NEDERLAND 1919 - 1945 (Documents relating to the foreign policy of the Netherlands 1919- 1945) September I 1924-August 31 1925 Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis 's-Gravenhage / 1992 This book contains the complete text of the 'List of Documents' from: Documenten betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1919 - 1945 Periode A: 1919- 1930. Deel VI: 1 september 1924-31 augustus 1925 Bewerkt door J. Woltring Rij ks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën, Grote Serie 220 ISBN 90-5216-034-01 geb. O 1988 Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis, 's-Gravenhage List of documents* No. Date; from/to Description 1 2.9.1924 Belgian question (1839 treaties amendment, etc.). Van Karnebeek, notes Notes on a talk with Hymans in Geneva. Status quo was to be maintained on the Wielingen issue, reser- vation of both parties’ ciaims. The writer’s appreci- ation of Prof. Bourquin’s qualities as a negotiator; the writer willing to seek a settlement without retrac- ting concessions already made, i.e. to proceed from what had already been achieved. Should the dissol- ved Commission of XIV be re-instituted? USSR’s position in relation to Article XVII of the Political Convention (prior recognition by the powers con- cerned required). Importance of arrangement for Terneuzen. A Belgian-French-Netherlandsmilitary agreement undesirable in view of what might have happened had such an agreement existed in 1914 (possibility of direct German attack on Belgium via the Netherlands). Advisable that the majority of the ‘Small Commission’s’ activities be concentrated in The Hague in view of the indiscretions committedin Brussels. Secrecy should be maintained until the pu- blication of a communiqué. 1 A Annex 2.9.1924 Draft letter concerning the omission of the Wielin- from Hymans gen issue from the settlement. 2 3.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly. Observations on fo- Van Karnebeek’s reign delegates (MacDonald anti-French? - Stau- diary ning and Lord Parmoor). The latter entertained litt- le hope of the guarantee treaty eventuating (‘They will never get it’). Benes’ displeasure at MacDo- nald’s comments on it. * The numbers in the first column refer to the documents. The second column lists the date of the do- cument, the name of the correspondents (save where the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs was sender or addressee) and the document’s place of origin, if other than The Hague. Initials and titles have been retained only where omission of them could cause confusion. Some names have been shortened, e.g. Beelaerts instead of Beelaerts van Blokland. The omission of from and to indicates an internal or undispatched document. The third column contains a summary of the documents, whilst reference to previous volumes is indicated by a Roman numeral followed by the number of the document. xxv No. Date; from/to Description 3 4.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly. MacDonald’s speech Van Karnebeek’s demagogic, crude, vehement and largely negative; diary his remarks concerning the apportionment of blame for the war and Silesia were uncalled for. Van Kar- nebeek’s own speech had met with approval from Loucheur, Sarraut, Hymans, (‘c’était la chose à di- re’), and Politis. During a dinner-party given by Drummond, Van Karnebeek had discussed socia- lism in which religion had a place, Marxism, the housing problem and financial aid to large families, with MacDonald. Socialism as ‘public charity all wrong’. MacDonald considered Van Karnebeek’s arguments in favour of a Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Affairs inapplicable in the case of Great Britain, where the force of political conflict in parli- ament would render it liable to abuse. Van Karne- beek had attended a party given by Herriot, who had also expressed his appreciation of Van Karne- beek’s speech and his intention of adopting its basic premise, while adhering to the view that a militarily organised means of coercion would be needed to make arbitration effective. Van Karnebeek’s objec- tions to international liabilities, in the interests of France as well as the Netherlands. 4 4.9.1924 Permanent Court. Huber had been elected president from Loder after the vote had been taken no less than fifteen ti- mes. The writer felt aggrieved (he considered him- self a victim of the ‘professors-Anzilotti and the others’ and of the positive reaction of Finlay and \ Moore to his rejection of foolish exception of Great Britain in a legal dispute). Weiss elected vice-presi- dent in the first round. Loder regarded himself as an exponent of the Court. 5 5.9.1924 Germany (increased freight rates for flour). Com- Hooft, notes mittee of importers of American and Canadian wheat requested the Netherlands to support Cana- dian-Americansteps against this measure. Suggesti- on that the envoy in Berlin discuss the matter with Stockhammern.German preferential (rail) freighta- ge not considered harmful by Van der Berg because of the considerable difference between rail and ship- ping freight rates in Germany (shipping freightage Rotterdam to Frankfurt and Mannheim 100 cents per 100 kg.; rail freightage Hamburg/Bremen to Frankfurt, approximately 4 gold marks). XXVI No. Date; from/to Description 5.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly. Herriot’s speech had Van Karnebeek’s made a deep impression; the content of Parmoor’s diary was quite good. Mention made of a conversation with Bratianu, who had had some interesting things to relate about conditions in the Middle East. 5.9.1924 Germany. Discussion of an agreement to supple- Minutes of meeting ment the Coal Credit Arrangement of 1920 (food- of Dutch and German stuffs and raw materials credits). Stockhammern delegations did not fear arbitration, but he did not consider it the most sensible course. Impossible to grant credit until 1935 (Patijn). Stockhammern proposed re- demption of five million on l January of the years 1927,1928 and 1929, and the remainder on 1 Janua- ry 1930. Germany had undertaken to meet the Dutch wish to get rid of the ‘Ausnahmetarife’ first, but had subsequently imposed new tariffs. Discussi- on of the connection between the two matters. 8 5.9.1924 Permanent Court. Further to No. 5. The members from Loder of the ‘Cour Mondiale’ were worthless. Discussion of the ‘roulements’ idea. Weiss and Pessoa believed that the Huber interregnum would be short-lived and that Loder could then be reinstated. Further de- tails about what he considered to be the plot against him. 9 5.9.1924 China. Hostilities broken out between the provinces from Oudendij k of Chekiang and Kiangsi. No need for the Nether- (Peking) lands to send a warship (‘i1 n’y a pas de danger pour Shanghai’). Situation still quiet in North China. Marshal Chang awaited further developments. 10 6.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly. Anglo-French motion Van Karnebeek’s concerning treaty (shown to Van Karnebeek by diary Hurst) adopted. It gave too little support to those who could no longer regard this treaty as a basis for the further handling of questions of security and dis- armament. Herriot and MacDonald, notably the latter, had behaved theatrically. Herriot was unlike- ly to oppose Germany’s membership of the League. Van Karnebeek feared a ‘clumsy’ German step in the matter of war guilt. Branting was said to have approached Ebert on this matter, and France and Great Britain were both to warn Berlin against pro- testing (cf. No. 37). 11 6.9.1924 Hejaz. Consul-General Van der Plas objected to the from Ruys de Beeren- Regent of Bandung, Raden Adipati, representing brouck to De Graaff Mutahrah Hajib on Islamic committees at the Mona congress. It was all the more to be regretted in view of the fact that the Mecca government had failed to XXVII No. Date; from/to Description persuade a single Javanese mullah. The Regent’s ar- gument that he wished to follow events there in the interests of Javanese politics was invalid. Van der Plas had moreover stated that Adipati did not speak Arabic. 12 8.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly. Talk with Parmoor, Van Karnebeek’s who feared that efforts would be made to use the gu- diary arantee treaty as the basic for the debates, whereas arbitration should be given priority. Discussed with Jouvenel the impossibility of the Dutch accepting obligations as referred to in the guarantee treaty, as that would entail ‘exposing ourselves to reservations that were alien to us’. Long talk with Benes on the same subject at a luncheon given by Chapuisat. The I object of these discussions was to reassure the French that the Netherlands was not pursuing an anti-French policy and to impress on them that it had no ulterior aims. There seemed to be a genuine desire to establish a form which would exonerate states such as the Netherlands from liabilities. Talk with Schanzer. Italy persisted in its objections to the guarantee treaty and to the American Shotwell-Bliss proposition. 13 9.9.1924 League of Nations Assembly, etc. Congratulations from Loder on Van Karnebeek’s successful speech in Geneva. The mandatory submission of disputes to the Per- manent Court was about to be accepted even by the great powers (just when the writer had been thrown out of that body). Whether or not advisable to send Hammerskjöld to Geneva for consultation on amendments to Article 36 of the Court’s Statutes. 14 9.9.1924 Germany (Dawesreport). (Section C, Art. IX). Swe- from Sweerts de dish interests also involved (which would be confir- Landas Wyborgh med by Swedish industrialists). Exemption from the (Stockholm) issue of debentures for companies with foreign capi- tal in Germany, as under the Treaty of Versailles na- tionality was no longer determined by a company’s location, but by the nationality of its component parts, capital or management.