ANCIENT DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 110, 5 November 1935, Page 9

ANCIENT DISPUTE

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA

MANY YEARS BREWING

COUESE OF EVENTS

The Abyssinian crisis had its origin in one of those frontier incidents which are frequent in the less-developed regions of Asia as well as Africa (writes P. W. Wilson in the "New York Times"). On December 5, 1934, there ■was a fight at Walwal, on the border between Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland, between Italian troops occupying that place and the Ethiopian escort of an Anglo-Ethiopian boundary commission. Thirty Somali soldiers in the service of Italy were killed and feelings were aroused. With the dispute unsettled, five Italian Somali soldiers were killed on January 29, 1935, at Afdub, near Walwal. From the first it was clear that Italy took a serious view of the affair. On February 10 she ordered the "precautionary" mobilisation of two regular army divisions. It has thus been amid cumulative preparations for war that efforts have been made to keep the peace. The complicated story covers a period of half a century. In 1889 Italy concluded with Ethiopia the Treaty of Ucciali. The treaty was worded one way in Italian and another way in Amharic, the language of Ethiopia. The Italian version implied a protectorate over the country. BATTLE OF ADOWA. In March, 1896, an Italian army of 14,600 men endeavoured to enforce this protectorate but was completely defeated by 100,000 Ethiopians at the battle of Adowa. A reason for Italy's "present attitude is a desire to wipe out a humiliating memory. The Treaty of Addis Ababa, concluded after the war of 1896, annulled the Treaty of Ucciali and Italy thereby acknowledged the independence of Ethiopia. The entire drama is overshadowed by prolonged and persistent struggle. On the one hand, there are European Powers anxious to obtain economic advantages in Ethiopia. On the other hand, the Ethiopian Government asserts its independence. After years of such intrigue the Emperor Menelek agreed in 1904 that Ethiopia's only railway should be built by France from French Somaliland to Addis Ababa.' In 1906 Italy, France, and Britain entered into a tripartite agreement. The three Powers mutually entered into two pledges: First, they promised to "make every effort to preserve the integrity of Ethiopia." Secondly, they would "concept together" if any situation arose that required such consultation. These guarantees appear to reflect on Italy's recent proceedings. The tripartite agreement of 1906 also recognised the special interests in Ethiopia of Italy, Britain, and France. On this treaty there have arisen two definite questions: Has it been superseded by the Covenant of the League of Nations? Was the treaty ever valid? Ethiopia has not at any time accepted the treaty. "Let it be understood," said the Emperor Menelek, "that this arrangement in no way limits our sovereign rights," and with regard to all European undertakings that has been consistently the Ethiopian attitude. IN THE LEAGUE. ■On September 28, 1923, Ethiopia was , admitted to the League of Nations by the ■unanimous vote of forty-five nations. Italy strongly supported Ethi- . opia's application. Into the strange story there now enters the Labour Government over which Ramsay Mac Donald presided, not only as Prime Minister but as For- i eign Secretary. In 1924 this Govern- j ment approached Ethiopia with a view to the use of Lake Tana. t The Conservative Government of „ Stanley Baldwin, following this lead, c concluded in December, 1925, an agree- £ ment with Italy at the expense of Ethiopia—and without consulting ' France. By this agreement Britain was to be ! allowed to build a barrage across Lake * Tana and a motor road from the Sudan to the lake. Italy was to be permitted £ on her side to construct a railway ' through Addis Ababa which would con- 1 nect Eritrea with Italian Somaliland. J Ethiopia was now a member of the League.- On June 15, 1926, she ad- i dressed identical Notes to Italy and ( Britain, protesting against encroach- i ments on her sovereignty. To Britain 1 she added the words:— \ "We should never have suspected ; that the British Government would j come to an agreement with another ] Government regarding our lake." , Britain and Italy hastily explained away their undertakings.. In the House of Commons on August 8, 1926, Sir • Austen Chamberlain, as Foreign Secretary, desired to "emphasise that the Anglo-Italian Notes do not reserve any j part of Abyssinia to Italian economic influence." Once more, Ethiopia held her own. TREATY OF 1928. In August, 1928, Ethiopia concluded a treaty with Italy. By Article II each of the countries entered into a pledge not to take any action detrimental to the independence of the other, which pledge is still in force. By Article V the two countries undertook to submit disputes arising between them to "a procedure of con- ■ riliation and arbitration." During the later crisis this clause has been frequently quoted. BACKGROUND OF INTRIGUE. ■ Into this background of intrigue and guarantee, the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia over Walwal—originating in December, 1934—was powerfully injected. The policy pursued by Ethiopia was clear. She was no party, as we have seen, to any agreement of the Powers that might have limited her sovereignty. She could stand four-square on her rights as a member State of the League of Nations. Acting also on her treaty of 1928 with Italy, she demanded arbitration. Britain urged Ethiopia to enter into separate negotiations with Italy, and . the attitude of France was unsympathetic. On January 7, 1935 —just before Italy inaugurated her expeditionary force—France came to an agreement with Italy, and it was hinted that France had conceded to Italy privately a free hand. On June 19 Premier Laval formally denied that there was truth in this suggestion. In April France, Britain, and Italy met at the Stresa Conference. Ethiopia was in the background. The object was an alignment against Germany, especially over Austria. France was ready to regard hostilities in Ethiopia as a colonial war of no paramount importance. The proceedings of the League were thus dilatory and amounted to no more than the appointment of a committee of four—later increased to five—to arbitrate 6n the merits of the Walwal incidents. The proceedings of this committee were obstructed by Italy, but in August there was issued a report exonerating both sides from blame. This report was ill-received in Rome. It eliminated the Walwal incident even as a pretext for Italian reprisals. OUTSIDE. During June it was the policy of Britain and France to arrive at a settlement with Italy outside the League