The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1939. ANOTHER TEST FOR THE LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 68, 13 December 1939, Page 8

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1939. ANOTHER TEST FOR THE LEAGUE

In the special circumstances under which the League of Nations Assembly has been convoked the proceedings have attracted considerable public interest. The world is curious to see how the delegates of the 40 nations represented out of the total membership of 53 wi respond to the test question which the new President, Mr. L. J. Hambro, of Norway, has put to them. He was referring to 1 inland’s appeal against Russian aggression: One member of the League which is threatened by another is defending its rights heroically (he said). We are now called on to prevent what is happening from spreading. We must act with prudence and foresight in order to make this Assembly the starting point for a new League. It is the duty of every member of the League to remain true to its ideals. Dr. Holsti, the Finnish delegate, also reminded the Assembly that it had an obligation to discharge. “Gentlemen,” he said, “do yOur duty. He was loudly applauded when he asked them to give all thopiactical support possible.” In the circumstances, what practical support is possible ? the League cannot take positive action against an aggressor except by a unanimous vote. It can, however, appeal to the parties to adopt a course of action which would be m conformity with League procedure. This has been done. Russia and Finland have been asked to reply within twenty-four hours whether they will agree to an immediate cessation of hostilities, followed by negotiations to be conducted under the auspices of the League. At the time of writing there was no indication of the nature of the replies. The'most interesting point which thus far has emerged from the League proceedings is the unmistakable feeling of regret that collective" action against aggression rests upon such a frail basis. . It has been brought home to those present by what has been happening in Europe during the past three years that in abandoning the principle and instrument of collective action they are now exposed to the very perils from which it was the purpose of that system to protect them. Is it now possible, as suggested by the League President, to make a fresh start? That is extremely doubtful. The circumstances are far from propititious. In any case, it would be dangerous to embark upon any experiment in that direction until the major issue upon which the strongest advocates of the collective system in the past, Bntain and France, have now taken up arms, has been determined. Those two Powers have joined issue with Germany to vindicate the main principle of the League Covenant, the dethronement of foice and the restoration of law, a principle which the League itself, as a body, has failed in the past to assert authoritatively and enforce. Ihe Allies, in fact are fighting the League’s battle.