DEBATE ON AIR WARFARE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22435, 23 June 1938, Page 11

DEBATE ON AIR WARFARE

PRIME MINISTER ON POLICY BOMBINGS IN SPANISH PORTS NO HOPE OF PROTECTING BRITISH SHIPS (BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.) (Received June 22, 1.10 p.m.) RUGBY, June 21. Speaking in the foreign affairs debate in the House of Commons, immediately after Mr Phillip Noel Baker (Labour), who opened for the Opposition, the Psime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) said he thought that there would be general agreement with the remarks which .had fallen from Mr Baker upon the horrors of modern war and about the practice of bombing from the air. “Indeed,” said Mr Chamberlain, “if it were not that China is so far away and that the scenes taking place are so remote from our everyday consciousness, I think that sentiments of pity, horror, and indignation which would be aroused by a full perception of these events might drive this people to courses which, perhaps, they have never yet contemplated.” Mr Chamberlain also accepted Mr Baker’s remark that it was wrong to lay it down that new weapons made new laws, but he said he must qualify that with the proviso that new weapons might introduce new conditions, which required, if not recasting, at any rate an elaboration of the existing laws. The fact was that at present there was not a code of international law respecting aerial warfare which was generally accepted. There were certain rules of international law established for sea and land warfare, and those rules or principles underlying them were applicable to aerial warfare, but they did not entirely meet the cases which had to be met to-day. Careful Survey of Position The Prime Minister reminded the House that the Government was engaged upon a careful survey of the whole position with a view to formulating a practical scheme which could be put before other countries for acceptance or modification, with a view to reaching some international understanding on the rules of aerial warfare. There, at any rate, were three rules or three principles of international law which he thought they might say were applicable to aerial warfare as fully as they were to .war on land or sea. They were:— (1) It is against international law to bomb civilians, as such, and to make deliberate attacks on civilian populations. That undoubtedly was a violation of international law.

(2) Targets must be legitimate military objectives, and be capable of identification.

(3) Reasonable care must be taken in attacking those objectives. Those three general rules they could all accept, and the Government did accept them, but obviously, when they came to practise them, there were considerable difficulties. Mr Chamberlain declared emphatically that he could not too strongly condemn the idea that it should be part of a deliberate policy to try to win the war by demoralising a civilian population through the process of bombing from the air. That was absolutely contrary to •international law, and he gave it as his opinion that it was, in addition, a mistaken policy. He did not believe that deliberate attacks on civilian populations would ever win a war for those who mad. it. Incidents in China and Spain After referring to the difficulties which arose in the practical application of the general rules which he had enunciated, and having repeated the wish of the Government to produce practical proposals before approaching other Governments on the question, Mr Chamberlain observed that he was bound to say that in the opinion of Britain far too many incidents had occurred, both in China and Spain, where those general rules had been plainly disregarded. Mr Chamberlain then turned to the question of attacks on British shins in ports in Loyalist Spain. He repeated that after a careful and exhaustive examination of all possible methods of giving aid to British ships attacked in territorial waters the" Government had come to the conclusion that ft was impossible to do so short of intervention in the war and cutting across the whole policy of non-intervention which it had been following since the outbreak of the civil war in Spain. He denied the suggestion that since Mr R. A. Eden resigned the Foreign Secretaryship the Government had changed the policy announced by the former Foreign Secretary regarding the protection of the British merchant marine. The Government still maintained its policy regarding attacks on British ships on the high seas, but it could not undertake in every single case that there should be a British warship within reach. Traffic in Arms Denied

Mr Chamberlain said that there was no foundation for the suggestion that British ships had been carrying arms or munitions. They had, of course, been carrying food, coal, oil, and other stores of value in the war, and that was the reason why they had been attacked, but the Government did not admit the right of General Franco or anyone else to attack these ships. What they did say was that they could not see any practical means of preventing it, which would not be completely at variance with their responsibility of maintaining the non-intervention policy. He had examined a number of suggestions advanced by Mr Baker for bringing pressure upon General Franco, and in each case he had found that the difficulties were greater than the Opposition supposed. He had come reluctantly to the conclusion that while the Spanish war continued they must expect a succession of these incidents. The sole satisfactory solution of thequestion would be the termination

of the war itself. On that all he could say was that the Government would, from time to time, take soundings with a view to seeing whether there were any favourable prospects of successful mediation, and when that time came they would be glad, either alone or in conjunction with others, to offer their services to bring the lamentable conflict to an end.

In opening the debate for the Opposition Mr Baker accused the Government of failure to take action to protect British shipping (such as its predecessors had taken at the time of the Metropolitan Vickers case in Russia) because of its sympathy with Franco. He replied to suggestions sometimes made by back bench supporters of the Government that the ships subject to attack had no right to the protection of the British flag and were trading with ports in Government Spain, in spite of the known risks, only for the purpose of reaping enormous profits. Hi’s case was that the Government seemed incapable of making a stand against the demands of the dictatorship States, and he stated that if only it would show firmness the situation, instead of steadily deteriorating, would be found to improve. “An Invitation to Franco” Sir Archibald Sinclair, for the Liberals, said he thought Mr Chamberlain’s speech was an invitation to General Franco to maintain and intensify the air blockade of ports in Government Spain by bombing peaceful shipping. The only reason why Britain had sunk so low as meekly to suffer such insults, was because Mr Chamberlain’s fortunes were politically bound up with the British-Italian agreement. He asked for information regarding rumours in the newspapers that Signor Mussolini had asked Britain to bring the agreement into operation in advance of the fulfilment of the condition of a general settlement in Spain. He also desired to know what had been the Government’s reply.

Sir Archibald Sinclair went on to refer to a series of articles which had appeared in a number of United States and Canadian newspapers four or five weeks ago, purporting to give the official British views on a number of recent questions of foreign policy. He argued that in view of the presumption which had been created that the views expressed in these articles had been inspired, it was important that their contents should be denied by Mr Chamberlain, and he expressed regret at the latter’s refusal either to confirm or deny them.

Mr Chamberlain intervened to say: “I must protest against any assumption that because I did not deny the interview therefore I am admitting it. I made it perfectly clear that if I were once to begin admitting or denying any gossip which may go round as authentic or as an alleged interview, whenever I refuse to give that assurance one way or the other, that would be taken as evidence against me. That is the reason why it is impossible for me to say that I will either admit or deny the truth of this story.” Opposition Speeches Attacked Several Government supporters, speaking subsequently, expressed resentment at Sir Archibald Sinclair’s speech and Sir A. R. Southby (Conservative, Epsom) declared that the policy which Mr Chamberlain was pursuing had won approval from the whole world. Mr Arthur Henderson (Labour, Kingswinford) referred to the persecution of Jews in parts of Europe as a result of the policy of racial discrimination, and spoke of the excesses which, he said, had shocked the whole of civilisation. He asked the' Government to take an active and helpful part in the forthcoming conference at Evian. Mr Lloyd George attacked the Government’s attitude to the bombing of British ships. He said British shipping was the greatest in the world, and it had always been protected against attack until now. He argued that the incapacity of the Government to find means of continuing that protection had originated in the Prime Minister’s rejection of Mr Eden’s advice that the situation in Spain should be cleared before opening the British-Italian conversations. Mr Chamberlain’s aim of peace was a noble one and perseverance in it was commendable, but if, in pursuit of that wide aim, he had taken the wrong course it was sheer obstinacy not to admit it “Non-Intervention a Farce” Sir Henry Page Croft (Conservative, Bournemouth) thought the Prime Minister’s policy introduced a glimmering hope of preserving world peace, and considered that Mr Lloyd George’s and other Opposition speeches did a disservice to. the cause of peace. Mr David. Grenfell (Labour, Gower) wound up the debate for the Labour Party, and described non-intervention as a farce.

The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr R. A. Butler), replying for the Government, said he was glad to be able to tell the House of the very ‘ distinct , progress which had been made in that day’s meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee. The agreement which had been reached on the main provision of the British plan meant that they Had got a long way nearer putting the plan into practice. In future it would be possible to submit the plan to the contending parties in Spain, and as soon as their acceptance had been notified it would be possible to put the plan into operation.

Turning to Mr Lloyd George’s remarks about the attacks on British ships, Mr Butler suggested that no substantial part of the public would be prepared to stand by Mr Lloyd George in them. The' real issue was: were they prepared to join in war to protect British shipping. The Government was not. Mr Butler mentioned" that he hoped to announce to-morrow the composition of the British delegation to the Evian conference on the refugee question. A Labour motion to reduce the Foreign Office vote was defeated by 278 votes to 148.