Dangers of Sanctions

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 220, 13 June 1936, Page 15

Dangers of Sanctions

Sir, —We are indebted to Mr. Neville Chamberlain and to you for at last telling the world the truth about sanctions. Your article of June 12 should open the eyes of all but those who are either wilfully blind or who are trying to mislead others; and if that does not suffice then surely the cablegrams in the same issue should complete their enlightenment. I will not quote all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said, but some of his remarks are pregnant with possibilities and vitally concern uh ; for instance, he says: “It is apparent now that the policy of sanctions involves war. or at least the risk of war, and that riskmust increase in proportion to the effectiveness of those sanctions, and it is apparent that in the face of such sanctions nations cannot be relied on to proceed to the extremity of war unless their vital interests are threatened ”

In the fnee of such a risk there are some men in England who are still prepared to urge the continuance, and indeed the extension of sanction-'. Among these men are the Archbishop of Canterbury. Viscount Cecil (specifically referred to by the Chancellor in the cablegram). Professor Gilbert Murray. Sir Norman Angell, Dr. Garnett (of the I-engtie of Nations Union) and others) And. sir, the most amazing thing is that these people are among the mnet prominent. of those who for ten or twelve years have been urging every British Government to disarm. They are not sincere I will put tin acid test question to them. If they think sanctions should be applied to Italy for its invasion of Abyssinia why do they not advocate the application of sanctions to Japan for its invasion of Manchuria and China? Until these people are prepared to answer that question it seems to me (hey should keen quiet. Both Italy and Japan are equally to blame, and if we seek to restrain one we should also seek to restrain the other, but, in any case, first let us see that, the weapons of restraint are’ adequate.—l am. ete., CONSISTENCY. ■Wellington, June 12.