Greater and Lesser Powers.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18676, 27 April 1926, Page 8

Greater and Lesser Powers.

In one of our cable messages this morning the Russians are congratulating themselves on "having extracted "the* anti-Soviet sting from the "Locarno Treaty." What they mean hardly matters, so long as we do not blind ourselves to what they have done. Britain's interest in Locarno began and ended with the conclusion of the Treaty guaranteeing the Rfiine frontier, and there neither was nor could be in that any idea of creating an "anti-Soviet combination." But the Locarno agreements of course included Arbitration Treaties as well—between Germany and Belgium, Germany and France, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia, France and Poland, and France and Czecho-Slovakia—and although not one of them had anything to do with Britain, it would be foolish to pretend that they were all framed without any thought of the peculiar position of Russia. The Rhineland Pact is an agreement between three great Ppwers and two smaller ones in which each has the same standing and influence; the Eastern Arbitration Treaties are " mutual private alliances " in which in every case but one a great Power is leagued with a smaller one and can, if it likes, dominate that smaller one. In what way the Treaty now concluded between Russia and Germany can be a " contradiction " of these alliances it is not easy to imagine, but it is obvious enough that it must be a disturbing answer to them in so far as they were directed against Russia economically. But the chief interest to our own Empire in the meantime is the bearing of all such discussions and negotiations

on the grouping and balancing of Powers. We have been told more than once lately that Britain's League of Nations policy is to reserve the permanent seats on the Council for the "Great" Powers and to have the "Smaller" Powers filling the nonpermanent seats in rotation. A little reflection will show that it is necessary to restrict the seats on the Council to a small number of Powers, since the formation of rival blocs in the Council, which would inevitably follow an increase in the permanent seats, would reduce the League to a debating society. But it is not so clear why. this small number should be wholly composed of " Great" Powers, or whether the distinction between great Powers and small is one that it is proper to admit. If there is such a thing as international law, and that in its turn has anything to do with international liberty, all nations should be equal, and if they are not to be equal in such an organisation as the League of Nations it is reasonable to ask on what the League is based. It is clear that there cannot be any such thing legally as greater or smaller Powers, and that the justification for making the distinction in practice is simply that the League, as well as the world, is full of jealousy, corruption, malice, and intrigue, and is not a safe place yet for unprotected idealism. One recent definition of a Great Power called it a Power which has many special interests in many parts of the world and so is peculiarly liable to attack—diplomatic, or military—on a number of fronts. " With "its particular and widespread interests, improper interference from a " more or less irresponsible, prejudiced " and perhaps mischief-making, body " might be fatal, and it must therefore. " proceed circumspectly in surrender-

"ing in any degree its self-control." That is crude political realism, not at all in keeping with the language and methods of the League of Nations; but we must either accept such a statement of the case or agree that what its' enemies say of the League, especially its Russian enemies, is reasonable criticism. The Great Powers retain, and insist on retaining, effective control of the League because they have more at stake in it and in the world, and because Powers with little or nothing to lose have little or no reason for acting with a sense of responsibility.