The Press Monday, December 22, 1924. League or Dominions?

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18262, 22 December 1924, Page 10

The Press Monday, December 22, 1924. League or Dominions?

It cannot be doubted, after the further cable messages on the subject which we publish to-day. that the Baldwin Government is anxious to work in closer association with the Dominions than any Government has ever done before. Whether it will soon issue invitations to another Imperial Conference is not yet clear, though it seems almost certain that it will, but it is quite certain that it desires as frequent and as full consultations as circumstances will permit. If the Empire's Prime Ministers do not meet again within the next two or three months the explanation will be found in some or all of the Dominion capitals and not in Downing Street; and it will bo an explanation that has to do only with difficulties of the moment. Whatever the rest of the world thinks of it, the fact must now be plain that the League of Nations means less to us than the League of British Nations. The difficulty that has arisen over the Protocol belongs in part to the nature of the proposal itself, but it belongs in much greater part to the nature of the British Empire. So far as the first difficulty is concerned, it does not accord with the facts to assume, as some already are carelessly doing, that the Protocol would have been adopted by the House of Commons if there had not been a change in leaders. It is not at all a case of a peace-loving and peace-pursuing party being displaced by a militarist party, with disastrous consequences to the cause of arbitration. If anyone should still suppose that Liberal-Labour-Radical opinion is all for the Protocol, and Conservative opinion all against, an extract from the pacifist "Nation" may bo read with advantage. After pointing out (a few days before the result of the General Election was known) that the precise attitude which Britain should assume towards the Protocol "will constitute perhaps the "most important and delicate of the "problems" of whatever party found itself in power, the "Nation" went on:

It will be a grave misfortune if the Protocol is considered in an atmosphere in which such considerations as the wickedness of "undoing Mr MacDonald's great work for peace" arc prominent. We need to evolve a national or lather an Imperial policy in regard to the whole problem, to define with a measuro of general acceptance how far the British Empire is prepared to go in assuming obligations designed to maintain world peace. For this reason, though we cannot endorse the "warm approval" expressed by the Executive Committee of the League of Nations Union of the principles of the Protocol, we hope that their suggestion that it should be referred to "a special Committee representative of all sections of opinion here and in the Dominions" will be adopted. In the meantime, nothing is more important than that the obligations of the Protocol should be fully understood. There are many earnest observers, by no means hostile to the League of Nations, who believe that the Protocol is infinitely more dangerous than the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which Mr Mac Donald himself rejected on the ground that the warlike obligations it would have imposed on Britain were so excessive that "if scrupulously carried out, they would in"volve an increaso rather than a de"creaae in British armaments."

But while it is necessary to emphasise the perplexities inherent in the Protocol itself, the fact remains that the Foreign Office has asked for time because it no longer regards itself as competent to speak for the British nation. It is of the greatest significance that the Imperial Government has not even attempted to make up its mind on the Protocol •syhile tho attitude of the Dominions remains uncertain. The "Daily Telegraph" will not even "contemplate the possibility of "Britain speaking for the Empire in "tlic Council [of the League] and "then having one ot' the Dominions "repudiating liability' for any com"mittal," and the Foreign Office shows the same determination to end the old system for ever. It is, however, suggested in another cable message to-day, and is in any case common sense, that while opinion in Britain ha 3 not | changed on the question of Dominion j status, the feeling exists that major questions should be settled by the Empire delegation before Britain expresses any opinion at all about them at meetings of the League. And one of the further unofficial comments made is that if there is a Conference of Prime Ministers the Imperial Government will accept "any reasonable plan, within the "limits of public policy," which the Dominions may offer for maintaining continuous consultation. The "Imperial "Cabinet" suggested is not a "reaaon- '' able plan "ifby " Cabinet "is meant anything more than a Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; but Mr Baldwin has already brought the High Commissioners into some kind of consultative relation with tho Foreign Office, and it is certain to be urged again that if the Dominion Governments are not prepared to send resident Ministers to London, and to accept their decisions, they should give their High v\ i. • 7 . i

Commissioners :i greater measure or authority. The last Imperial Conference came to some very definite conclusions about trcaty-mafctng. and the iibertv ot' each s p .'-governing rornmunitv ;o enter info relations with foreign Powers. Tt is already open to a Dominion which so desires to appoint its own representative in foreign capitals, and it is distinctly anomalous that it is at least technically easier now to communicate und consult with foreign Governments than \rith the Government of the Lnited Kingdom. The basis of the international diplomatic system is correspondence by mail or cable—with personal contact. Our Imperial system allows for the first j only.