FOREIGN POLICY OF BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22032, 4 March 1937, Page 11

FOREIGN POLICY OF BRITAIN

WORLD WELCOMES

REARMAMENT

"ADDING TO THE FORCES

OF PEACE"

MR R. A. EDEN'S SPEECH IN

HOUSE OF COMMONS

(BRITISH OFIICIAL WIRELESS.) (Received March 3, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, March 2. "The Government cannot and does not endorse universal military commitments, but it stands by the league covenant and baset* its foreign policy on it. That is why almost throughout the world the British rearmament programme has been welcomed, for it is realised that Britain will not engage in a war contrary to the covenant," stated the Foreign Secretary (Mr R. A. Eden) in a speech in the House of Commons, in which he defended the foreign policy of the Government.

The Foreign Secretary dealt first with Spain. He recalled that the British Government had taken initiative after initiative in favour of a non-intervention policy. It could justly claim that it was a right policy, and the Government would persist in it. , The Foreign Secretary defended the League of Nations against those who described it as virtually dead. The solution of the Alexandretta dispute was a success which was owed in a large measure to the admirable work of the council's rapporteur, the Swedish Foreign Minister (Mr R. J. Sandler). Information to hand showed that local feeling m the Sanjak warmly welcomed the settiem "I 'am sorry that I can give no similar happy account of the progress of the negotiations for anew Western Agreement," said Mr Eden. •Now that the Spanish danger was less, they had to make another etfort to achieve progress, and he did not despair of getting the nations concerned round the table on this issue.

Britain's Foreign Commitments Mr Eden analysed the position of Britain as he had denned it in a speech at Leamington in relation to foreign commitments, to the league covenant, and rearmament. He added his own to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recant challenge to the Opposition to say specifically where they differed from his statement of British aims and policy. It was to prevent ambiguity or doubt that he had declared that British arms might, and, if the occasion arose, would be used in defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression, and in accordance with treaty obligations. If a new treaty could be negotiated a similar undertaking would readilv and willingly be extended towards Germany. . Regarding the obligations under thi covenant, the Opposition complained, Mr Eden said, that he had been less definite. That was not because his Majesty's Government was seeking to deny its general covenant obligations, but because as far as military action was concerned, the obligations of the covenant were less far-reaching, less specific, and less precise than the Locarno obligations. Had it been otherwise, there would have been no need for Locarno.

It might be argued that the covenant obligations should be as precise respecting military action as Locarno, and that all the nations ought to undertake in advance to have recourse to military sanctions, but that was not the covenant. Such a commitment would not only go beyond the covenant, but beyond the abortive Geneva Protocol of 1924, Necessity for Rearmament Was it the view of the Opposition that they should go beyond the protocol now when the league was relatively in a much weaker condition? Nothing could be more illogical than to stand for universal military commitments and not to be ready to provide the necessary armaments. Everyone, Mr Eden declared, regretted the necessity for the rearmament programme, but it was his conviction that with Europe and the world as they were to-day, for Britain to have greater power was to add to the forces of peace. “We must,never forget that rearmament is a means to an end and not an end in itself,” he added. “If it creates fresh opportunities to reach, an agreement on limitation, I agree that these opportunities must not be missed. It is even possible that through this route, which none of us wishes to take, we shall reach the goal we all desire. This at least is true of his Majesty’s Government. I believe the policy it is now pursuing and the statement of its commitments which'l made, is the greatest contribution which it is in its ppwer to make to the preservation of world peace.”

References to Germany The debate was initiated for the Opposition by Mr David Grenfell (Lab., Gower), who said the backbone of the league system had fallen apart and they had lapsed into the conditions of secret diplomacy and "balance of power" politics which had been so generally denounced after the Great War, and so largely accepted as being responsible for that catastrophe. The great nations were arming against some danger which was never specified, and propaganda which was dangerous and unparallelled in the history of the world was rampant. Speaking of Europe, Mr Grenfell said all Germany's neighbours were apprehensive about her and her alone. •He hoped the Foreign Secretary was speaking as plainly to the German Government as the circumstances warranted. She must be asked definitely whether she wanted peace and what kind of peace she stood for. Was it peace all round? Intervening later in the debate, Sir Austin Chamberlain (Con., Birmingham) suggested that they did not want a new conference or newagreements, but an undertaking to keep all agreements already made. He observed that Germany had complained of her difficulties about raw materials, but now had declined to attend the meetings of the committee at Geneva which investigated

the whole question of access to raw materials.

Several speakers emphasised that the speech of Herr Joachim von Ribbentrop (German Ambassador to Britain) at the Leipzig fair, giving as alternatives the voluntary return to Germany of her lost colonies or their recovery "by Germany's own strength," was to be interpreted as a threat to regain them by force.

NO OVERTURES TO OTHER

POWERS

REARMAMENT TO BE BASIS OF

BRITISH 'POLICY

(Received March 3, 5.5 p.m.)

LONDON, March 2,

The fact that Mr R. A. Eden (Foreign Secretary) devoted almost his whole speech to underlining his approval of the recent statements by Lord Halifax (Lord Privy Seal) and Mr Neville Chamberlain (Chancellor of the Exchequer) confirmed the widespread belief that Britain's foreign policy for a considerable time will be restricted to rearming without any diplomatic initiative abroad. . ~ His references to the divergence in Empire views on the reform of the league are held to foreshadow important discussions at the Imperial Conference in an attempt to evolve a common policy for the reform of the covenant.

"UNPLEASANTLY LIKE ULTIMATUM"

HERR RIBBENTROP'S SPEECH

AT LEIPZIG

(Received March 3, 8.30 p.m.)

LONDON, March 2.

Mr L. S. Amery, a former member of Cabinet, speaking at Manchester, described Herr Ribbentrop's speech at Leipzig as unpleasantly like an undated ultimatum, which seemed to call for an immediate answer. The German Ambassador could not make speeches like that and expect immunity, from criticism.