ROME SURPRISED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21717, 26 February 1936, Page 11

ROME SURPRISED

Less Conciliation Expected EMPHASIS ON SUCCESS IN ABYSSINIA IL'NTTF.O I’KIISS ASSOCIATION tOI’VHUjfI.T.) (Received February 25, 10.15 p.m.) LONDON, February 25. The Rome correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” says that Mr Eden’s speech caused surprise, as it was expected that he would be more uncompromising towards Italy. The official reaction, according to a Government spokesman, is that Italy disagrees that an oil sanction resembles others —on the contrary, oil is a sinew of war, and therefore an oil sanction would be a military sanction. Consequently Italy reserves complete liberty of action if it is imposed or if present sanctions are intensified. Mr Eden’s hint at the possible resumption of peace discussions on the basis of the Committee of Five’s proposals, is strongly rejected. The typical comment is that Italy has travelled far since she marched into Adowa; but Mr Eden still stands by the plan drawn up in September. It is added that Italy will never evacuate the territory, and that therefore the Abyssinian conflict must continue. Italy regards the refusal to publish the Maffey report as an indication that the passages which Signor Gayda did not print were derogatory to Britain. The Rome correspondent of “The Times” says that the Italians believe that Great Britain’s cautious attitude towards sanctions will be increased by Senator W. E. Borah’s speech in Washington, especially by the criticism of the motives which induced the league to declare Italy the aggressor. It is emphasised in political circles that Senator Borah’s reference to “insidious propaganda” confirms allegations that Britain brought pressure to bear on the United States to persuade her to join in sanctions. MORE VEHEMENCE PREFERRED j i SOME DISAPPOINTMENT IN SPEECH _ COMMENT IN LONDON (Received February 25, 8.50 p.m.) LONDON, February 24. The “News-Chronicle” endorses Mr Eden’s speech as a sound statement of Britain’s general policy, but draws attention to the vital necessity of keeping abreast of the oil sanctions, question. It adds: “The Government’s duty at Geneva is to demonstrate that we intend to take the lead and enforce a programme which the vast majority of Britons support. We possessed, but threw away, American aid, when the blunder over the Hoare-Laval negotiations and subsequent vacillation raised doubts about our sincerity.” v The “Daily Herald” says that Mr Eden may not be a good man going wrong, but he is a good man going dangerously easy. Britain prefers Mr Eden in his vehement moods. “The Times” interprets Mr Eden’s speech as a statement of Cabinet policy as well as his own. Mr LeesSmith’s suggested appeal to the; United States would be rejected by a large section of the American people as an attempt by the league to saddle the republic with responsibilities which it has consistently rejected. The league must act independently, remembering that there are other means of pressure on Italy besides through oil supplies. A settlement must be just and thorough. Geneva, on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee of Five, must give Haile Selassie full league assistance, which the committee envisaged before aggression began. j The “Manchester Guardian regards Mr Eden’s speech as disap-j pointing. The export of oil to Italy j ought to have been prohibited at I the start. j