FUTURE OF LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 196, 16 May 1936, Page 11

FUTURE OF LEAGUE

Britain’s Collective Security Efforts “WE SHALL TRY AGAIN” Question of Changes May Be Considered (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, May J 4. The Prime Minister devoted to foreign affairs the principal parts of a speech which he delivered this afternoon to a gathering of Conservative women in the Albert Hall. In a characteristic introduction he reminded his audience: “I am not a dictator; I have to rely on reason.” And he went on to comment, that one tiling would strike the historian of the future—namely, that, wherever one found in the world to-day tlie greatest measure of constitutional stability there one found the most complete freedom of criticism of the Government. Turning to the anxieties of recent months and the discussions in Parliament and in the country generally on foreign affairs and ■ the League of Nations, Mr. Baldwin said that for the first time there had been a clear appreciation of what League membership meant and involved. That in itself was a good thing. Reading the preamble of the League Covenant, the Prime Minister said:— “Those objects are still the aim of our foreign policy, and if Europe is to be preserved then they must be the aim of the foreign policy of all nations.” But a difficult question was to determine what were the best and most practical means of achieving those aims. Need for League Changes. “What I have always said before this crisis I repeat now-,” he proceeded. “If you find an instrument will not do what you want, it does not mean that what you desire is impossible of achievement. What it does mean is that you and all those who have used that instrument without success must sit down and examine tlie instrument, modify it. strengthen it, alter it, and embody in it. if you can. such changes as will make it effective for your purpose. I would say here that probably at the League Assembly in the autumn League members will have to consider what, if any, changes are necessary in the League, and T hope any changes that may bo found helpful in inducing those nations which are outside the League to come into it—if any such changes can be seen to be feasible —will be considered with all sincerity and with every desire to make the Longue at last what it was hoped to bo at. the beginning—n universal League.” Regarding the Italo-Etbiopian dispute. Mr. Baldwin said that, acting from no personal feelings, hut from a desire to fulfil the Covenant obligations. the British Government had tried to bo a good League member and had done more than anyone else. Therefore, he was not disposed and did not intend to accent the blame for the fact that those efforts had failed to prevent war or materially to affect the progress of hostilities. In the ItaloEfliionian disnute the Government-had boon prepared, if necessary, to go the whole length to which sanctions would have led them if the other Powers in the League had been ready to accompany them Stronger Defenees. But experience had made it plain that to be effective in promoting the peace of Europe and of the world they mu«t have secured the safety of their own land, people and Empire, and therefore must proceed to remedy the deficiencies in defence. It was no good making up their minds to take effective action in support of the League unless they were in a position to take it. It was no good deciding on economic and financial sanctions if they were not going to back them up. Military sanctions were an essential .art of collective security. “We will try out collective security as far as we can all go together, but I for one will not despair if on this occasion it fails." said Mr. Baldwin. “We shall try again.” The question was, were the nations of Europe ready to play their part, because in collective security there could be no limited liability and no sleeping partnerships. Collective security did not mean that all the work was to be done by the British Navy for other nations. The Prime Minister concluded by declaring that the well-being of the British people depended upon tbe peace of Europe and of the world. Isolation was impossible. No responsible person could believe that Britain, any more than France or Germany, could remain indifferent to the fate of any of her neighbours. ’ RECEIVED BY HITLER British Ambassador at Berlin (British Official Wireless.) (Received May 15. 5.5 P.m.) Rugby May 14. Berlin messages report that the British Ambassador, Sir Eric Phipps, was received to-day by Herr Hitler. It is presumed that the subject of the conversation was the questions recently addressed to the German Government by the British Government in order to obtnin elucidations of tbe German peace proposals.