The Press Tuesday, December 15, 1931. The League of Nations and Manchuria.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20420, 15 December 1931, Page 10

The Press Tuesday, December 15, 1931. The League of Nations and Manchuria.

In this morning's cable news there is a j summary of speeches made by Lord Cecil and Lord Grey in connexion with the Manchurian dispute. The mere fact that there has been such a demonstration—for Great Britain is hot directly interested in the dispute, and has troubles enough of her own to think about—shows that there is at least the nucleus of an international public opinion; and an international public opinion is, after all, the only real sanction behind international action. The speeches of Lord Grey and Lord Cecil were a vigorous tlenial of the point of view" that the Manchurian situation has revealed the •futility of the League of Nations, and it is impossible to believe of either speaker that his words are merely an attempt to make the best of a bad business. Lord Grey insists that it • is too early to talk of failure in connexion with the Manchurian affair, and that the action taken by the League Council has resulted in several important successes. Ho enumerates these as being the isolation of the dispute, the recognition by China and Japan of the Council's right to investigate, the co-operation of the United States with the League, and the removal of the idea that the Covenant and the Pact of Paris are incompatible. This last point is an interesting and important one. The Pact of Paris and the Articles of the Covenant specifically directed at tha prevention of war differ in two respects. The Pact of Paris absolutely condemns war as 80 instrument of national policy j the Covenant permits war in certain circumstances, after a period of delay which way be as long as nine months* On tha other hand, the Covenant is a more practical approach to the problem than the Pact in that it provides definite alternative means for tho settlement of international disputes; tho Pact merely says that settlements "shall never be sought except by "pacific means." The explanation of the difference is the distrust of sanctions that easts in the United States, and critics of thsr Pact have always been afraid that it would be used by the United States as an«exeuso for not co-pperftting with the League; Per ready support of the Council in tJie- Manchurian affair seems to have convinced Lord Grey that the Pact is rji honest contribution to the cause of peace, and not a veiled attempt to proves an alternative to ftho sanctions clauses of tha Covenants If this view is correct there has been an important advance in international solidarity, for, although there in no immediate -prospect ©f the United States formally catering the League, there is apwpest of her co-operating with the League to snob jm* estent that the rest, of ' the world will regard her as virtually a member. It may be argued that the successes ennmaratedbyLora Greywe negligible beside the cold fact that fighting has broken out in ' Manchuria and the League has not been able to stop it. Jjord Grey does not try to make light of this aspect of the situation; he admits that Japan seems to have ignored her International obligations. The League Council, judging by its pronouncement? on the subject, is of the same opinion, but is for the moment content to assume that there has been no declaration of war, and therefore no justification for putting Article 19 into operation, It has however been too hastily asserted that the League Council is sheltering behind ft legal quibble. Even the Spectator, in a recent,issue, is mildly ironical about the Council's "great, perhaps excessive, (i patience," in dealing with China and Japan;, but war has not broken' out, find it is extremely doubtful whether either Government desires war. The fighting that has so far taken place has been due to factions in each country getting out of control. It is not clear, po# perhaps very releTanV which. sifle provoked the present conflict, but the left wing of the Kuomintang, which if reputed to be drifting towards Communism, has already been guilty of acts of provocation towards Japan which might easily have'ended in war, Chiang Kai-shek and the responsible leaders of the Kuomintang, on the other hand> have tyied, and are trying, to prevent an. open breach with the Japanese Government. In such a ! tangled situation it is difficult to see how the League Council can improve on its present policy ol isolating the dispute and arranging for an enquiry.