PROTOCOL REJECTED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10350, 13 March 1925, Page 5

PROTOCOL REJECTED

DECISION BY BRITAIN.

ATTITUDE OF DOMINIONS

NOT A SUITABLE METHOD.

(Per Press Association—Copyright.'! (Received This Dav, 11.45 a.m.) GENEVA, March 12. Mr Chamberlain announced that Britain was unable to accept the Protocol. Mr Chamberlain stated that his Majesty’s advisers, after discussion of the Protocol with the Dominions and India, j were unable to sign or ratify it in its i present form. The British Government did not believe the Protocol as it stood provided the most, suitable method for attempting the task for which it was intended. He had not had time personally to confer with the repre- ,, sentatives of the Dominions and India, but there bad been telegraphic communication. Canada was unable to ac--ept the Protoad.

SYMPATHY WITH MAIN THEMES.

MEETING SPECIAL NEEDS,

(Reuter.) (Received This Day, 11.40 a.m.) GENEVA, March 12. , In his speech to the League, Mr Chamberlain stressed the Empire’s ' sympathy with the main themes of the Protocol, but said the changes made in it were formal rather than substantial, aiming at theoretical completeness rather than practical effect, and aceom'plishing nothing of importance in the cause of peace and disarmament. It appeared from telegraphic communications that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India also were unable to accept the Protocol. He was not yet in possession of the views of the Irish Free State. His Majesty’s Government concluded > that the best way to deal with the situation was to supplement the covenant by special arrangements *to meet- special needs. These must be purely defensive in the spirit of the Covenant. Thesle aims were best attained by means of treaties framed to maintain unbroken peace. No quicker remedy could be: found against future calamities.

The work of the League continued * beneficent and promising. Though America remained in friendly aloofness, individual Americans had extended sympathy with the League generosity. It would be most unwise to add to the liabilities already incurred by the League without considering the machinery. The Covenant was already weakened by the absention of certain .States. A change, especially as regards economic sanctions until transformation, would be a weapon of incalculable power, but the mere existence of pow- < orful economic communities outside the t League changed all that, f Referring to Clause 15 of the Proto--1 cal, Mr Chamberlain said his Majesty’s 1 Government did not desire to relieve ♦ the aggressor from the duty of repairing damage. They strongly held the view that frontiers should be neither lightly made nor lightly violated. They accepted the principle of sover.eign States managing their own affairs, but considered it would be unwise to employ these generalities in dogmas of inflexible rigidity, applicable to all circumstances and to all time. He failed to see why the League should deliberately deprive itself of the discretion which all other tribunals were free to exercise. ■* Dealing with unprovoked aggression or barbarous war, Mr Chamberlain said the second half of Clause 15 protected the aggressor. He asked whether in such a case the League was to do nothing better than ask for money.

ADHESION BY FRANCE.

PREFERRED TO ANY PACT

* LONDON, March 22. The Paris correspondent of the {■ “Daily Telegraph” states that after a r prolonged conference M. Herrioi and I the party leaders decided to instruct M. Briamd at Geneva, that France cdto its support of the Protocol in preference to any pacts recently suggested. . Probably M. Briand will indicate that France is willing to accept modii fications to the Protocol, since its strongest supporters admit that the Protocol would be valueless without Britain’s and the Dominions’ adhesion. The “Daily Telegraph’s” diplomatic correspondent points out that the League Council can neither hill nor save the Protocol. It can only prolong the agony by obtaining a postponement v till the Assembly meets in September.