The Dominion TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1926. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS CRISIS

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 121, 16 February 1926, Page 6

The Dominion TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1926. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS CRISIS

It is no longer in doubt that questions vitally affecting the whole future of the League of Nations will be raised at the extraordinary session of the Assembly set down for March 8. Ite attempt to offset the effect of Germany’s admission by creating an anti-German majority on the Council is now defined plainly as one that could not be persisted in without endangering the continued existence of the League. , • Although Sir Austen Chamberlain has declined to commit himself on the subject, it seems very probable that the London Observer is well informed in its forecast of the attitude Britain wi 1 take up at the impending Assembly. According to that journal, the British Government will hold firmly that the extraordinary session of the Assembly is solely for the purpose of admitting Germany. _ This appears to be the only attitude that is consistent with good faith and a regard for the stability of. the League. ... T -, There is no escape from the view that if the League Council were packed by the allocation of permanent seats to countries like Poland, Spain, and Brazil, Germany would _ be justified in withdrawing, her application for membership. It is. even more important, however, that the policy of building up an anti-German majority on the Council would destroy the character and standing of the League as a peaceful association of nations. The movement in favour of enlarging the Council appears to be described quite fairly as an attempt to create a permanent majority for a French policy. Although it is directed for the moment against Germany, this policy evidently is calculated to destroy the League. " . , , . , . , It is so clear that this is the issue really raised that it may be hoped the policy Britain is said to favour will prevail over all opposition at the impending Assembly.® The League already has become such a power for good in the world, and so obviously is capable in reasonable conditions of co-operation of extending its activities with benefit to humanity, that no nation can lightly accept the responsibility of undermining its foundations. . . The growing influence of the League is nowhere more plainly attested than in the increasing readiness of the United States to co-operate in international activities initiated by the League. The United States has not only adhered to the World Court, but has agreed to be represented at the impending conference on armaments to be summoned by the League. ..... , In commenting on the last-mentioned decision, the Washington correspondent of the London Times said. that it was regarded as a concession to the League of considerable importance.

In 1921 (he added) the State Department was nervously afraid to answer communications, however formal, from a source it then considered to e tainted, and it is a far cry indeed to this present admission that the League is not only a force to be reckoned with, but an agency capable of assuming an initiative which had earlier belonged to the United States. . . . there need be no doubt that if some genuine step towards disarmament cotild be made under the League’s auspices it would rise from the grave. In no country in the world is the desire for disarmament so strong as in the United States, and no agency which genuinely contributes to that end will lack the support of the American people, even though it should not secure the adherence of the United States Government.

, Even in America it is thus recognised that the League is developing into an effective agency for the promotion of a peaceful understanding between nations. All that has been gained on this line, of advance undoubtedly will be lost if the movement for the creation of a French bloc on the Council is allowed to succeed. To look at these facts is to realise that the Assembly which is to meet a few weeks hence will have the whole future fate of the League in its hands.