GERMANY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3146, 4 December 1922, Page 2

GERMANY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

The question whether Germany should apply for admission- to tho League of Nations at the current session of the Assembly in Geneva is discussed in the Con temporary Review by Dr Bernhard Deni burg, who will be remembered as a former Colonial' Minister of Germany. At the outset, Dr Dernburg raises the question whether an application for membership on Germany’s part would not mean that she had dropped her protest against certain portions of the Versailles Treaty and should be considered as having thereby assented to the 1 whole of the Treaty. As portions of the Treaty to which special exception is taken. Dr Dernburg refers to the charge that Germany caused the war and also to the assertion that Germany must be deprived of her colonies because she had been brutal to her native wards and could not be trusted to treat them fairly and benevolently. On this point Der Dernburg says: “Having hold the office of Colonial Secretary for four years, when I came in friendly contact' with administrators of a number of British dependencies, I can say that this allegation is absolutely baseless; that we , constantly strove to better the state of our colored subjects ; that we surrounded them with all possible guarantees, and took the best care for their physical welfare and spiritual advancement. That we did as well as our neighbors, and sometimes even better, was fully recognised by British experts. The dishonesty of the proceedings is emphasised by Mr Lansing’s statement that the mandate system was mostly resorted to in order to avoid the necessity of crediting Germany for its outlay in and its loans to the colonies.

“Among tlie many other grievances of the treaty this stigma is our main complaint. What role would Germany play in the League if she appeared without this spot removed, which allows any second-rate Power that went to war with Germany for profit and advancement to sneer at us? The less actual power we possess the more we must depend upon moral influence to be useful in the League-at all.” As to responsibility for the war. Dr Dcrnburg urges that as a first step, there should be the dropping of mutual recriminations, a frank confession that the war was a tvorld blunder that dare not he repeated, and the avowal that the Longue of Nations means a new era in world relations. This, he assorts, is the German conception of the League. The 1/oague, as constituted, is criticised because of the directive and executive powers of the Council and the comparatively small field left to the Assembly. He believes that the League lacks the essentials of democracy.

“The Council has too much, the Assembly too little power. All decisions should issue from the Assembly or its members should he chosen, not by the committees, and the Council should be executive. But not only in this respect must the League he democratised. Its governments, but by and from the parliaments of the various nations. / All this can be found in the German coun-ter-draft to the respective paragraphs in ilie Peace Treaty. Since the United States seems decided to stand aside, the Ileague will always ho a Tump. It should therefore he considered whether the European members cannot find a form of closer co-operation and create an instrument by which purely European questions, such as Upper Silesia, could be decided by Europeans ailoue. Wo foci that without such changes the League will remain ineffective.”

In spite of his- objections to the League as at present organised, Dr Dernhurg is himself convinced that Germany should apply for admission : “if the old system of force and brutality stands condemned and abhorred by civilisation, there must be something else that is effective to replace it. The League of Nations is a serious effort to create such an effective instrument, hut only if and when all the great European powers become members and whole-heartedly co-oper-ate. If the League fails, .one reason will lie its incompleteness. I should not wish that the blame should fall on my country for such failure. Despite our experiences and the ill-will of some leading members, Germany should apply on certain conditions. They would lie as follows:- —

“Firstly, wo must he reasonably sure tliat our application will lie accepted l»y an overwhelming majority, ami by all the Great Powers,' save perhaps Franco. Secondly, it should he fully understood that, in adhering to the Covenant, we do not renounce the protests that we made against the treaty or against the League's decision on Fpper Silesia; hut on the contrary, that wo intend to use the League to revise in an orderly, peaceful way the treaty and such of its consequences its may yet he remedied. Thirdly, until the League ho democratised as outlined above. Germany should be at once accepted in the Council as one of its permanent members, as a measure due to her size and importance and as a sort of rehabilitation from the imputations of the Peace Treaty. Fourthly, international agreements concluded Uy Germany before she entered the League should be recognised by the League as binding between Germany and her partner (the Hapallo Treaty). Fifthly, for eonsiderations of justice and equality, as well as policy .at least one of the colonial mandates should he entrusted to her. and the League should undertake to negotiate in this dire* tom. Finally, there should he an understanding that at any rate Fngiand agiees to such a programme. We have many good reasons why we should not become members, political as wei! ■is sentimental, but we should scrap them m the general interest, and show thereby that we enter fully into the spirit al’ a true Society of aXtions. I would therefore, on the conditions and nulei standings which 1 have outlined, and winch I consider necessary or reasonable. advise my Government to apply IVr membership of the League as soon as the necessary consent of the Reichstag can he obtained.”