The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1936. “Reforming” the League

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21810, 16 June 1936, Page 10

The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1936. “Reforming” the League

A recent speech by Mr Neville Chamberlain and a draft report by Senor de Madariaga, summarised in the cable news yesterday, help to reveal what is in the minds of those statesmen and publicists who, since the Italian victory in Abyssinia, -have been talking about “ reform ” of the League of Nations. “Sanctions,” savs Mr Chamberlain sweepingly, “have been tried “ and have failed.” The members of the League must therefore decide “ so to limit the League s “ functions in the future that they will accord “with its real powers.” Thus reformed, the League might, Mr Chamberlain thinks, recover some of its lost prestige, though it “could no “ longer be relied on by itself to secure peace “ for the world.” Senor de Madariaga, in a report to the League’s Committee of Thirteen, of which he is chairman, attempts to translate these ideas into concrete proposals. Members of the League are to be empowered to make a reservation freeing them from their obligations under article 16 (the “ sanctions article) “ until the League is universal and disarmament is achieved.” Furthermore, there is to be a “ second covenant ” for the benefit of countries which, like the United States, are unwilling to assume full League obligations. This second .covenant will be without articles 10 and 16 “ and other controversial points.” A reformed League, then, is simply a League without the power to restrain or punish unprovoked aggression; and the advocates of reform would be more honest if they said straight out that they are proposing the abandonment of the ideal of collective security. Senor de Madariaga’s proposed amendments to the constitution of the League are in any case pointless. There is no need to empower member States to temper their obligations under article 16 by means of reservations, because in practice those obligations are extremely elastic. Several States chose not to apply economic sanctions against Italy; and they are still members of the League. A “second covenant” would create a whole crop of legal complications and could achieve no benefit. The United States Government already co-operates fully in all the technical and social work of the League and is a member of the International Labour Organisation. If it did sign a “second covenant” it would not be brought into a closer relationship with Geneva and might even arouse the isolationist element in American public opinion to a protest against the closeness of the present relationship. It is as well to realise that at the present time Americans are as rigidly opposed as they have been at any time since the Great War to any intervention in the political affairs of the rest of the world. “ I have tried to make “ it clear to other countries that in their prob- “ lems our help will be confined to moral help. “We are not going to get tangled up in their “ troubles.” Thus Mr Roosevelt in a speech reported in the cable news yesterday; and the Republican convention is specifically opposed to American adherence either to the League or to the World Court.