LEAGUE PRINCIPLES

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 5, 1 October 1935, Page 9

LEAGUE PRINCIPLES

Adherence By Britain

Reiterated

REPLY MADE TO

FRANCE

Attitude Not Peculiar To Abyssinian Dispute

(British Official Wireless 1

Rugby, September 28.

The text of a letter signed by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel I [care. which was handed to the French Ambassador at the Foreign Office on September 2G, is now published. Its terms are:—

“In the inquiry you were so good asto address to Sir Robert Vansittart on September 10 your Excellency expressed the desire of your Government, in connection with the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, to learn io what extent they might be assured in future of the immediate and effective application by this country of all sanctions provided in Article 16 of the Covenant in the event of violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and resort to force in Europe, and you referred in particular to the eventuality of resort to force in Europe on the part of some European State, whether or not that State might be a member of the League. Geneva Speech Recalled. “I have the honour in reply to invite your attention to the words I used in my speech to the League Assembly on September 11. I then declared that his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be second to nope in its intention to fulfil within the measure of its capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon it, and I added that the ideas embodied in the Covenant, and in particular the aspiration to establish the rule* of law in international affairs, had appealed with growing force to the strain of idealism in British national character, and that they had indeed become part of nati( nal conscience. As your Excellency will also recollect, I further took the opportunity in the course of my speech to repudiate any suggestion that the attitude of Majesty’s Government had been one of other than unwavering fidelity to the League and all that it stands for, and I draw attention to the fact that the recent response of public opinion in this country showed how completely the nation supported the Government in full acceptance of tl:e obligations of League membership which was the oft-proclaimed keynote of their foreign policy. I added that to suggest or insinuate that this policy was for same reason peculiar to the Italo-Abyssinian conflict, would lx* a complete misunderstanding. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth.

“I said—and I sincerely welcome tiiis opportunity to repeat with full responsibility—that it is to the principles of ihe League and not to any particular manifestation thereof'that the people of this country had demonstrated their adherence. Any other view would at once be an under-estimate of British good faitli and an imputation upon British sincerity. In conformity with its, precise and explicit obligations I jwinted out, and I re-emphasise. _ that the League stands, and this, country stands with it, for collective, maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression.

“I would draw your Excellency's particular attention to this last sentence. I think it will be generally agreed that no member of the League could lay down its policy in advance of any particular case likely to bring that policy into consideration with greater clarity and decision than in those words. Your Excellency will observe that I spoke, as I am now writing, of all acts of unprovoked aggression. Each word in that sentence must have its full value. “It is at once evident that the procedure under Article 16 of the Covenant, appropriate as regards a positive act of unprovoked aggression, is not made applicable as regards t.lte negative act of failure to fulfil the terms of a treaty. Further, in the case of resort to force, it is clear that there may be degrees of culpability and degrees of aggression, and that consequently in cases where Article 16 applies the nature of action appropriate to be taken under it may vary according to the circumstances of each particular case. Elasticity Part of Security. “Your Government, as I am aware, already recognises these distinctions. And similarly in regard to treaty obligations it is pertinent to recall that as I have already said at Geneva elasticity is part of security, and that every member of the League must recognise, a s the Covenant itself recognises, that the world is not static. If it be suggested that this declaration of support for the principles of the Covenant embodied in my recent speech at Geneva and reaffirmed in the present note represents only the policy of his Majesty’s present Government and not necessarily that of their successors in office, I may point out that while my words at Geneva were in fact spoken on behalf of the present Government of this country, those words were also spoken with the overwhelming support and approval of the people of this country.

"I stated at Geneva —and as has since become increasingly evident, the attitude of public opinion in the last few weeks has clearly demonstrated the fact—that it is moved by no variable and unreliable sentiment, but is concerned with a general principle of international conduct to which it will firmly hold so long as the League remains an effective body. His Majesty’s Government, believe that the organism which in the considered opinion of this nation represents tbe one and only real hope of avoiding the senseless disasters of the past and ensuring world peace by collective security in the future will not lightly render itself impotent by lack of faith in and refusal of effective action on behalf of its own ideals. “But that faith and that action must, like security, be collective. The point is so vital that I must In conclusion once more quote my words at Geneva —‘lf the risks for peace are to be run, they must be run by all.’ So long as the League preserves itself by its own example this Government and this nation will live up to its full principles.’’

On September 12 tbe If reach-Govern-ment, through its Ambassador in London, inquired of the Foreign Office whether it might be assumed that the firm attitude

being taken by Britain at Geneva on tbe Itnlo-Abyssinian dispute in regard to a case of aggression would henceforward also be adopted in Europe, especially in the event of an act of aggression being committed against Austria. FRANCE SATISFIED Reply to Her Question Paris, September 29. It is stated officially that tbe Government is completely satisfied with Sir Samuel Iloare’s Note regarding Britain’s policy in the event of an act of aggression in Europe and adds that nothing could be more definite.