LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 125, 23 November 1926, Page 14

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

NEW ZEALAND'S PART

SIR F. BELL INTERVIEWED

THE MANDATES QUESTIONNAIRE.

(From Our Own Correspondent) LONDON, Cth October. Mandates and the United States' application for membership of the Permanent Court of International Justice seem to be the two subjects in which New Zealand was especially interested at the recent Assembly o£ the League of Nations. The. New Zealand delegates were required to attend a conference of Powers, who are signatories to the International Court of Justice, to consider the reservations the Jnited States made before consenting to the adherence to the World Court. That conference began on Ist. September, a.week before tho meeting of the Assembly. After two or taree uays it appoaited a committee of about iii'teen members to draft a reply to the United States, and that committee was kept fully occupied in discussion until the last day of the Assembly. Sir Francis Bell, who .was vice-president of the committee,' appears to have strenu ously opposed tho United States' application", coupled as it was with a demand for special privileges. To the first four reservations little objection was made; but the fourth and fifth created rlitliculties. The fourth demanded the right of the United States to withdraw from its adhesion to the World Court at any time it thought fit, and according to the fifth reservation, the Court might entertain no request in which the United States Government even claimed an inter-' est without the consent Of the United Slates. It is customary for the council to refer on its own authority numerous questions to The Hague without reference to tho other members of the. League. There seemed to be a tendency on the part of the committee to let the United States slip through with these entirely inequitable reservations, but the senior New Zealand delegate persisted throughout in his opposition. The conference ultimately decided to claim an equal right to withdraw its acceptance of the fourth and fifth conditions. The answer to the ■ fifth condition was a long and elaborate examination of the right to require.advisory opinions, and of the doubtful point whether any single member of the Council could veto a request for an advisory opinion. The reservations have only been conditionally accepted. They have still to be confirmled by each of the signatory Powers, and this Sir Francis is confident will never be ' done. The United States will, therefore, I withdraw he.- application, for membership lof the Permanent Court of International •Tustice. ''The principal event of the Assembly.'' -aid Sir Francis Bell, when I saw him on the day after he returned from Geneva, "was the advent of the German delegates. The first business of the Assembly was to affirm the new constitution of the Council providing a permanent seat for Germany, and a further resolution admitting Germany to the League. Dr. Stresemauu's speech on the latter resolution was interesting and M. Briand's magnificent, AN UNPRECEDENTED INCIDENT. "There was considerable difficulty in the extension of the number of elective seats to the Council, partly because the Council would become uuwieldly and partly by reason of the provision for re-election. Eventually, only one application for re-elig-ibility was made by Poland, and that application was granted. The surprise of the voting was the election of China, as it was assured that Persia would be the Asiatic Power chosen.' China is in arrears for practically the whole of her contributions to the League. The first act of the chief Chinese delegate after election was entirely unprecedented. He asked permission to address the Assembly. The hall was crowded. He started out to speak of a presentation of a Chinese encyclopaedia to the League, and then suddenly made a violent attack on Great Britain. He declared that a large number of Chinese vessels had been sunk by British warships and" about 5000 people had been killed. The president did not understand the English Which Mr. Chu spoke regarding what is known as the Wauhsien incident, and it thus escaped immediate prohibition. Subsequently the tirade was translated into French. Lord Cecil claimed the right to reply, which was at once granted. He made a most dignified and restrained reply to the effect that the information of the British Government was entirely contrary to the statement made by Mr. Chu. Moreover, the matter was then under discussion between tho two Powers, and should not have been publicly discussed by the representative of China.

"'A number of the delgates," added Sir Francis Bell, ''expressed the opinion that the Chinese representatives had been threatened with death by the Bolsheviks if he did not make this r.ublic accusation against Great Britain. If Mr. Clw's conduct on this occasion is an example of the manner in which he will conduct himself as a member of the Council, it is difficult to anticipate harmony or the unanimity which is required in the Council." A DELIBERATE AFFRONT. Commenting on this incident, the "Daily Telegraph" remarks:—''For four years China's allotted contribution to the League has been unpaid, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be or can be paid at any future time that is of interest .to anyone now living. The Chinese delegate marked his sense of the honour by promising the presentation to the League of a Chinese encyclopaedia, which has never been printed, which would cost some millions of dollars to print, and which would, if it ever were printed and the costs of its transportation defrayed, require a special building to house it. "But Mr. Chu had something of more immediate interest in store for the Assembly. His fantastic attack upon Great Britain delivered before the Assembly on | Friday last was not merely a complete perversion of. the facts, of the Wanhsien incident, the official statement of which by our Minister in Pekin, Mr. Chu did not think fit even to mention. It was a deliberate affront to the Assembly itself, whose President had been deceived and whose rules of procedure had been violated in order that this wild tirade might be launched from the tribune of the Assembly; and the first act of China as i memberof the League Council had to be visited by a public rebuke from the President of the Assembly on the following day. "To give the finishing touch of absurdity, it now transpires that the Fourth Commission of the League has submitted, and the Assembly has passed hurriedly along with other business crowded into the last day, a resolution requiring China to 'propose effective and concrete methods' for tho payment of her contributions now in arrcar, and a further resolution calling upon the Council of the League—of which China is now a member—to examine 'the legal position of States which do not pay their contributions to the League.' " MANDATES COMMISSION. Continuing his narrative of the proceedings of tho assembly, Sir Francis Bell said: "A meeting of the Council was held immediately prior to the first meeting of the Assembly to consider the report of the Mandates Commission and particularly two matters submitted by that commission. The first of these was a proposal that the Commission should examine not only the petitions presented to the Council from persons of tho nations subject to mandates, but should, in exceptional cases, hear the petitioner in person. The second was a i-e----quest from the Commission to the Council to approve a series of interrogations (exceeding 70) submitted to the Mandatory Powers, many of which concerned minute details of administration. Sir Austen Chamberlain and M. Briand spoke in strong opposition to both the proposals, the latter emphasising the grave danger of constantly occurring publicity in Geneva, where disaffected persons whose claims had been refused by the Government could obtain a second hearing and create the idea that injustice had been perpetrated. Both Sir Austen and M. Briand pointed out tho danger of excessively minute inquiry into details which appeared to be the tendency of the Mandates Commission. "All Ihe other members of the Council expressed their agreement with these views. Mr. Van Steen (Vice-President of the Mandates Commission), Mr. Smit (South Africa), and myself, as representative for New Zealand, were called to the table and sat at the Council. Mr. Smit strongly supported the objections, and I contented myself by saying that Sir Austen Chamberlain had expressed the views

of New Zealand. I added that New Zealand which had go often been commended for its control o£ Samoa, was becoming impatient at the extent of the inquiries into details of its administration. Mr. Van Steen protested against the observations of both Sir Austen and M. Briand, and declared lie felt that they were a reflection on the members of the Mandates Commission. Eventually, the Council resolved that both proposals of the Commission should be referred to the Mandatory Powers for observation." THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. The Mandates Commission is made up of representatives o£ minor Powers, and it would appear that their zeal to justify themselves runs away with their discretion. The subject is dealt with in a leading article by the "Morning Post":— ••It seems," says this journal, "that the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the Mandates Commission and his qualification of the latest questionnaire imposed upon the Mandatory Powers as inquisitorial has caused considerable consternation. 'Parccres subjeetis et debellare superbos'— the white man's burden demands something more than tho filling in of forms and the "answering of questions, however, adroitly they may be expressed. People are not governed on paper, and statistics have the same relation to human nature a? a man's shadow, varying in relation to the light, to his personal appearance. The wise ruler leaves blue books and figures to Mr. Sydney Webb and his Fabians, dealing himself with the facts which the changing moment throws up for solution. If the League ever becomes the home of cranks and faddists, its end will come swiftly, and there is no weapon so dear to that class o£ humanity as a questionnaire. Yet there have of late been signs of a readiness on the part of the Mandates Commission to pronounce judgment on a Mandatory Power before its cause was heard. However, the Assembly has' formally thanked the Mandates Commission, and doubtless Lord Cecil's valediction to its labours, winning it against maUim* the task of a mandate too delicate and difficult, will be remembered when it meets again." The New Zealand delegates—Sir Francis Bell and Sir James Parr, with their two private secretaries—were represented on all the six Commissions.