The Dominion. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1935. TO-DAY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 73, 19 December 1935, Page 10

The Dominion. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1935. TO-DAY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

What happens in the Hotfse of Commons to-day will determine what will happen soon at Geneva; what happens, at Geneva will spell the fate for good or ill of sanctions against Italy; what happens in the matter of sanctions against Itav w decide the future of the League of Nations; and upon the future of the League of Nations may depend the peace of the world. No wonder, therefore, that commentators at Home are describing to-day debate as the most critical since 1914. Yet such are the paradoxes of events that the League stru-.lt . and the collective security system, which buttress world peace, aie imperilled now, not by a feverish desire of the wor d to rush into war but by an earnest wish to avoid it., Whatever the demerits of the proposals themselves, and whatever the unwisdom of taking such a course, the Anglo-French peace draft was prompted by a very real fear, at least in the hearts of M. Laval and Sir Samuel Hoare, that the result of oil sanctions would be war in Europe. Mr. Baldwin, as leader of a preponderantly Conservative Government, will be on the defensive to-day against an attack from Labour, but, on the surface at least, the recognised position of the parties will be reversed, for Mr. Baldwin will be justifying a policy intended, to ’ preserve the peace in Europe, and the Opposition will be urging measures which, in the opinion of the Government, would lead, to war. At bottom, however, both sides of the House will be arguing the cause of peace, not only in Europe,, and now, but throughout the world, and, it may be hoped, for all time. The strength of Britain’s position as leader within the League of Nations of the movement for collective security becomes a weakness when she is left alone,-or is threatened with being left alone, to carry the ultimate burden of that policy. Without Britain tie League would never have done what it has done in the Italo-Abyssiman dispute, but, instead, probably would have closed its eyes as it closed them in Manchukuo. That is to say, Italy would have, been allowed to ride roughshod over Abyssinia—as far as the Abyssinians would allow her—and to make conqueror’s terms for peace when it European public opinion, regimented through the League and inspired by Great Britain, was not prepared to allow that. Accordingly the League took a stand as it had never taken a stand bet ore on so critical a question, condemned Italy as an aggressor nation- and put into action against her preliminary economic sanctions. These being found insufficient to effect the end in view, it is proposed to make them more drastic. Then M. Laval and Sir Samuel Hoare suddenly change front—turn against the very procedure which thennations’initiated. The sanctions now operating against Italy do not go the length visualised by Article 16 of the League Covenant, which provides that in the event of a member of the League resorting to war in disregard of its covenants "all other members of, the League undertake immediately the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State, and the prohibition.of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse.” There is a further undertaking that members will mutually support one another m the financial or economic measures taken, resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, this does not say and it does not mean that economic sanctions are to be followed by war as a means of disciplining recalcitrant members. Economic sanctions thoroughly applied would achieve their object without the support of arms. But the Covenant does visualise the possibility that a nation against which economic sanctions were directed might thereby be provoked into hitting back. That possibility ,M. Laval and Sir Samuel Hoare believe would be realised if the nations cut off supplies of oil from Italy. “It would be painful to end our ties of friendship with Italy,” says M. Laval, “so we started to find a basis of negotiations in order to avoid rigid economic sanctions like oil, iron and coal.” Such talk is trifling with the intentions of 'Article 16 and with the whole purpose of the Covenant of the League. For obviously what the Article intended were ‘ rigid . sanctions : “severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals . . . and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse. ’ Article 16 deals in absblutes. Rather, than face absolutes, M. Laval and Sir Samuel Hoare propose to relinquish ah action by way of sanctions and allow Italy to go her course. For that is w.iat the proposals amount to —that Italy should keep all the territory she fias invaded and be given monopolistic exploitation rights over a much larger area. It is as though M. Laval, seeing a thief threaten a jeweller’s window, were to wag at him an admonitory finger; then, finding that ineffective, to raise a quaking fist. Which being still ineffective, and the thief being by this time in the shop. M. Layal approaches him and says: “Look, you. I could bold you till the police come, but you might turn nasty and hurt me. So let's make a deal. There is about £lOOO worth of jewellery in this shop, none of which belongs to you or to me. You have about £2OO worth already in your pockets. Suppose I let you take another £2OO worth, and you agree to leave? And 1 shall not tell the police.” The parallel is not exact, because in the first case the police are not an external body who on being summoned will come without fail, but the members of the League, of whom at the moment Great Britain, and France are the two most important. But the parallel holds in its essentials, which are that Italy is wrongfully in possession of Abyssinian territory;; that by invading Abyssinia she became an offender against society; that society’s duty is to restrain her; and that to abandon restraint and'condone her offence is not only to break faith with Abyssinia, but also to undermine public security generally.