CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 296, 13 September 1927, Page 9

CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH

AT THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ASSEMBLY BRITAIN'S POLICY REGARDING SECURITY & DISARMAMENT UNCOMPROMISING REPLY TO CRITICS Sir Austen Chamberlain, the British Foreign Minister, at the League of Nations Assembly, made an uncompromis- ‘ ing reply to critics of Great Britain’s policy in regard to security and disarmament. What was demanded, lie declared, meant the destruction of the British Empire.-

Rugby September 11.

Sir Austen Chamberlain made a notable speech at the League of Nations Assembly yesterday. He said: “It would be . idle to pretend that the failure of the .recent Three-Power Conference on Naval Disarmament has not caused certain disquiet and anxiety lest their failure to reach agreement should be the prelude only to a larger failure in the Preparatory Commission of the League. No tone can regret more than my country does the failure to reach agreement in the Three-Power Conference, but even from the failure we may draw the hope that we may m time win success, we may find encouragement that three great Powers should have met to discuss so vital a question, should have found themselves sustaining opposite and irreconcilable themes, should have carried on discussion under the eye of the public, and when, after all, they were unable to agree their cordial 'relations of amity and respect should remain unimpaifed and their confidence in the peaceful intentions of each other received no check. But was not the failure of that Conference a, lesson for all?’’ LACK OF PREPARATION FOR CONFERENCE. Sir Austen Chamberlain referred to the fact that the Locarno Conference had been preceded by nine, months’ anxious and careful preparations, and vet those who took part .n it knew what difficulties bad to be overcome before the Treaties of Locarno were signed. “May it not be that the failure to agree in the Three-Power Conference came from lack of preparation, from failure to secure sufficient basis of agreement before the Conference met, and may we not draw from it a resolution to work patiently, even if we work slowly, and that it is not always by hurrying that the greatest or even the quickest results are achieved?” BRITAIN'S INTEREST IN DISARMAMENT. His country, declared Sir Austen Chamberlain, yielded to none other in its desiye to see real and large restriction in armaments. Its interests in disarmament lay not only in words and speeches but in facts. “The British Army was reduced immediately peace was‘secured to less than the pre-war level to a strength which, is only sufficient to discharge the great responsibilities which we carry on our shoulders in so many part of the world Our naw cannot be compared with the navy which we maintained, I do not sav during the war, but before the war. Year by year the Budgets for the armed forces of our country have grown less I beg von to ask yourselves which of you, carrying our load of responsibility of the peace of so many and such scattered countries in such varied conditions would have done more. Is there anv country, I would even ask, that would have done as much? Our interest is shown by the risks that we have taken and are taking by the reductions which we have already made. Far be it from me to say that there is not further contribution that we can make to the cause of disarmament and peace. BRITAIN’S PLEDGE IN CASE OF AGGRESSION. “Knowing all this, for the sake of peace, to help bring three nations together to give them tire security which makes their mutual agreements possible, we pledged our word onct more to do in the case of aggression on those Western frontiers for Germany, for France, for Belgium, as the case may be, what we had pledged our word to do before and were called upon to keep. You ask us to do more. Could not some of you do as much before pressing us to go further? Is there no other troubled frontier which those so anxious for this international action could take under their protection, to which they could give their guarantee, as we have pledged ours on the Western frontiers of Europe, and by so doing bring together two other nations at present regarding each other with mutual suspicion and fear? You say we are not doing enough. You invite us to fake for every country and for every frontier a guarantee which we have taken for one treaty. If you ask us that you ask us what is impossible. Our strength —great as it may be—is not equal to the task with which you would charge us. If I held out to you hope that we can undertake such extensive obligations I should deceive you. If we were to undertake in the present state of the world, and at this time, such extensive obligations we could not keep them. Ladies and gentlemen, you do not know what you ask us. You are asking nothing less than the disruption of the British Empire. I yield to no one in my devotion to this great League of Nations, but not even for this League of Nations will I destroy that smaller but older League of which my own country was' the birth-place and of which it remains the centre.” POSITION OF THE EMPIRE. Turning from disarmament to arbitration, the Britsih Foreign Secretary

■ said: "I would beg you to bear in mind the special conditions of the British Empire. Ours is not a unitary system of government such as prevail in your countries. We are a great community of free and equal nations, each autonomous, united in the oldest League of Peace in the world. It is not easy for an Empire so constituted always to.accept obligations that can be readily undertaken by a State homogeneous, compact and speaking one voice of but a single Government. It is not easy and would not be right to accept obligations unless we not only have the intention but know that we have power to fulfill them. You thing sometimes we are backward. There is an undercurrent. of suggestion that we cannot participate in all the plans that are framed we are stopping the progress of the League and are an obstacle in its way. 1 beg you to think of what we have done. I do not know whether we have signed more treaties' of arbitration than Italy or any other country or not. I think we have arbitrated more grave problems than any other country in the world. Only ■ the other day the Council of the League was occupied for no small time with a decision as to what was to be the frontier of Iraq. We had accepted theCouncil of the League not as conciliator, but as judges. We had bound ourselves in advance to accept and obey the decision of the Council, whatever it might be, for us or against. It was rendered in our favour. What, use did we make of it? Did we use it to say those are our rights? The Council of the 1-cague has awarded them to us. About them there can be no negotiations.. No, that very award given in our favour we used to open negotiations with Turkey and make'; a concession to her that had not been required by the Council, and in that way make acceptable to her an award which, if rigidly enforced, she might have found difficult to regard with anything but dislike.” THE FAMOUS PROTOCOL. Sir Austen Chamberlain recognised the devotion of the majority of the League members to the “famous Protocol.” M. Politis, the' Greek delegate, who had contributed largely to the formation of the Protocol, had told the Assembly that the work of the League would never be complete until the League had been made, not what it was now, an Assembly of Sovereign States meeting in Council, but a super-State, giving orders to all States, not only for the conduct 1 of their external affairs, but as. to how they must behave, and what they must do within their own boundaries and among .their own people. “That way,” said Sir Austen Chamberlain, “danger lies. It is not so that I see the nature of 'the League. The judgment of the League is the judgment of the highest tribunal to which here on earth any nation can appeal to justify its action, and to whose approval any nation will have infinite need in the moment of trial and trouble. The British Government bases its whole policy upon the League, because no country, however powerful, even to-day can disregard your moral judgment, or be blind to the advantage of being able to come here before you or your Council to plead its cases, to receive your ap : proval, and to justify itself before the world. We have accomplished much ; we shall accomplish more. Work may be accomplished in two ways and from both ends ’ The growing- reconciliation between ancient enemies or former enemies makes the risk less, and makes whatever guarantees you want easier to give. Is there not" as much to be done on the path which Germany and France have chosen, of direct reconciliation, as by any amendment of the Covenant, or addition, or Protocol, or the heaping-up of sanctions ?” He valued more such declarations as those that had been made in the Assembly by M. Briand and Dr. Stresemann—solemn declarations of determination to pursue a peaceful course and eliminate war from the future relations of their countries—then all the sanctions which the League, could apply to either if it broke its pledge. FAITH IN THE LEAGUE. In conclusion, Sir Austen Chamberlain said: “Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we view the future of the League a little differently. Our faith in it is the same; our purpose is the same. The way in which we would reach our purpose varies with our circumstances, our temperaments, and our responsibilities. I look to no hasty and dramatic way. I look to no series of sensational steps to make the League what, in time, we all hope that it is to be. I think of the League rather as an acorn that some man of good-will and imagination planted less than ten years ego, which is now a sturdy sapling, though at no particular moment could we mark its progress. I think of it as ever growing and expanding, until it becomes a mighty oak, under which all the nations of the world shall find their secure and constant shelter.”—British Official Wireless. VIEWS ON CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH “DISPOSED OF SLOPPY i INTERNATIONA LISM” BT Telegraph.—Press association. Copyright. (Rec. September 12, 8 p.m.) London, September 12. The “Daily Telegraph's” diplomatic correspondent states that Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech is regarded in foreign diplomatic quarters as a landmark in the Evolution of post-war Britain, uttered with the full weight and authority of the Home Government and every Dominion Government delegation. The speech said what none hitherto had had the courage to say at

Geneva—that the manhood and treasure of the Empire were not to be indiscriminately mortgaged for the benefit of other frequently quarrelsome nations. Sir Austen Chamberlain disposed admirably of sloppy internationalism. As one of Britain’s most sagacious diplomats, he said that Britain had no desire' to act cither as the chief constable or the chief dupe of the European Continent. The “Daily Express” says: “Sir Austen Chamberlain spoke as the British Foreign Minister should. The Empire must be paramount, and Europe and the League secondary, though great efforts have been made to reverse the order of precedence.” The “Daily' News” describes the speech as singularly infelicitous. A firm resolve not to support the Protocol does not necessitate putting a wet blanket on the activities of the League. “POSITION IN EUROPE THROWN AWAY” Loudon, September 11. Mr, Ramsay MacDonald, in an interview with . the "Daily Herald,” said that Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech was .most unfortunate and calculated to increase Great Britain’s difficulties in Europe. For the last three years we had become more isolated, the Baldwin Govetnment, both in trade and international policy, giving the world •to understand that the Empire was unable to adapt itself to modern conditions. ■ Nothing could have been more awkward than the statement that the Protocol would disrupt ‘he Empire. Iti any case it was not true. “We should' leave our enemies to say such things We have gratuitously thrown away our position in Europe.” FRENCH PRESS CRITICISMS Paris, September 12. Sir Austell 1 . Chamberlain’s speech has aroused some criticism, newspapers complaining-of the so-called narrowness of Britain’s policy. “Pertinax,” writing in the “Echo de Pans” translated the tenor of the speech as: “May the League perish rather than the British Empire.” “Liberte” says Britain regards the League iti the light of a limited liability company. “Gaulois” describes the speech as frank to the point of brutality. “Le Matin” states that the logic of the utterance is not comprehensible to the French mind.’ THE DUTCH MOTION MENTION OF PROTOCOL ELIMINATED ’’ Geneva, September 11. Just before’ the adjournment, the Dutch delegation amended Jonkheer van Blokland’s motion demanding a restudy of its underlying principles to a simpler, more acceptable, and more harmless motion, asking for a third commission, to which it will refer a restudy of the question of security, disarmament, and arbitration, without mentioning the Protocol. It looks, therefore, as though the long-drawn fight required itj 1921 to scotch the Protocol will not need repetition.