London Letter

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 41, 12 November 1936, Page 10

London Letter

WHAT OF THE LEAGUE? A Melancholy Assembly ALIGNMENT OF MEMBERS (By J. A. Mulgan and G. S. Cox.) [Air Maili London, October 17. The seven teen th assembly ot the League of Nations came to a melancholy eml last week. It has Uns advantage that, beginning as it did, in an atmosphere of profound pessimism, anything that it accomplished was felt to'be on the credit side. In effect, however its accomplishments were lew ami the main interest of Geneva was in the polities which surrounded the deliberations of the League, rather than in the actual committees and assemblies of the League itself. „ What is left of “collective security, the system which meant so much a year ago and now means so little? It is important that even those who hold most lirmlv to the ideals of the League should realise how little reality there is at the moment in the system. Yet most observers at Geneva, even in this melancholy years were bi the efficiency of the machinery which is there, waiting to be used, an by the power, which still lies with the small nations of the world. There was evidence of this at the outset in the refusal of the small countries aided by Russia, to refuse admission to Abyssinia Other occasions were the mandate 'inquiry into Palestine where Dr Lange sombre Norwegian delegate, demanded and obtained immediate information for the League on which it can act if necessary.

Reform of the Covenant. Right at the end of the session there was a further example. The whole question of the reform of the League covenant had been shelved throughout the session, though many speakers in the general debate-had refened to it. The British and French delegations used all their influence to prevent the question being discussed, arguing that the delicate situation in Europe and the necessity of getting Germany back into the League made any strengthening q the Covenant premature, and that if the question must be discussed, countries outside the League should be consulted. Pressure of the small countries proved too great, and a commission was set up to deal with the question. Litvinoff Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, was the leading figure on this commission where all the heads o delegations sat. Speaking three times in one morning, he denounced the “faint heartedness” of those who wish to weaken the League, in order to make, t universal. “It is not true,” he said, “that sanctions failed. They were betrayed. If we had had one more country’ jn—and particularly that country to' whom so much reference has been made (Germany)—we should have had one more traitor.” He was supported by the small countries Czechoslovakia, Holland, Norway, Sweden. Nevertheless, it seemed likely that though a committee would be set up to make its report, all action would be delayed. To New Zealand went the credit, late on the last evening of the session, of proposing that the committee should begin work at once and should report to a special meeting of the Assembly hi December. This motion was immediately supported by Lange of Norway arid Litvinoff, and was carried. New Zealand’s Position.

The division of countries throughout the whole assembly was quite clear. The small countries as described above feel strongly that their interests and safety depend upon the League Covenant and are prepared to support its principles; ou every issue. The representatives of the New Zealand Government found themselves continually in agreement with this section. On the other handi Britain and France— supported by some of the extra-European States —were occupied in postponing all action, aiming always at the meeting of the five Locarno Powers, which now seems to be more unlikely than ever. Without a lead from either Britain or France the League is—and always has been—functionless and powerless. Litvinoff was an outstanding personality throughout the session. Short, heavy and vigorous, he speaks English which is bard to follow but effective in its directness, always several degrees nearer to the point at issue than the customary diplomatic language of Geneva. Russia’s interests led him to oppose continually the British view which aims now at a Western pact and a close understanding with Germany and France, leaving Russia in possible isolation The supporters of the Russian view were led there not by a sympathy with her internal politics but by a belief that the League Covenant can alone bring peace, that the power politics of Britain and France are shortsighted and must lead inevitably to disaster. Europe To-day.

In effect, the present grouping of European Powers is exactly as it was in 1914, with Russia and France in alliance against Germany: both sides bidding for the doubtful friendship of Italy; England in dubious avoidance of commitments, trying to avoid an entry into a European war. On the credit side are the small countries of the Little Entente and Turkov —all strong supporters of the League. The New Zealand representatives’ support for a strong League policy was also strengthened by a belief that only in the League can the British Empire find cohesion. At Geneva, the present differences were clearly revealed. Mackenzie King, suave, shrewd Canadian Prime Minister, showed clearly in his speech that Canada was isolationist as far as ordinary European entanglements go. “Some Canadians will fight in one more European war.” a journalist remarked. The Australians, led by Stanley Brnce, a. popular Genevan figure, more English than Australian, were content to follow nny British lead, but behind the delegation were the isolationist statements of their politicians at home South Africa, famous for her independence, became pro-League under the Italian threat and now shows signs of relapsing into isolation. All the Dominions in fact, say clearly that they are no longer content to have their foreign policies alligned with European Power pol’tics with all its disastrous secrecy, that their commitments must be made plain and that this can only be done through Geneva. No one who has seen the League can doubt that the machinery is there, and that the system in theory is ideal. It may take another European war for it to be properly used. The Spanish Tragedy. ’There seems now to be no doubt that in Spain Madrid must, fall to the rebels within a very short time. The obvious

superiority in man-power that the Government lias throughout Spain is being worn down in every battle by the superior arms of the rebels. There is no doubt Hint the policy of non-inter-vention lias directly aided the reliels. In its favour, it must be said chat there were serious consequences to be expected if nations outside Spain engaged on opposite sides; non-interven-tion has at least avoided for the time repercussions in Europe. But it may be questioned whether this further surrender to the Fascist dictators will nor be paid for some day at a heavier price.