RULES FOR SANCTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 112, 7 November 1935, Page 8

RULES FOR SANCTIONS

HOW LEAGUE MAY ACT

ITALY'S*. ECONOMIC. DRAW-

BACKS

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, October 12.

Now that the League Council has decided what nation is -the aggressor in the Abyssinian dispute, the question may be asked: What action is it possible for the League to take? Sixteen years ago the world's statesmen made provision for the settlement of disputes. Fourteen years ago the' diplomats- at Geneva actually drew up a series of rules "for guidance" in the event of the application of Article XVI, the sanctions article, which automatically follows a breach of Article XV. , Mr. Julian Grande, for many years the correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" at Geneva and a close student of all League matters, explains these rules in the jpurnal "Graat Britain and the East." -; ■ : These rules—they are almost forgot.ten now—are explicit (says Mr. Grande). They declare that it is in accordance with the spirit of the League Covenant that the League should attempt, at least at the outset, to avoid war and to restore peace by economic pressure and that the fulfilment of their duties under Article XVI is required from League members by the express terms of the Covenant. Members cannot neglect them without breach of their treaty obligations. . . ' ■-."■ :■ In the event of any breach of the Covenant under v Article XVI, the Council shall be immediately summoned and', what is more important, the Council may also call in the representatives of the parties to the dispute and of all States "which are of the defaulting State or which normally maintain close economic relations with it, or whose cooperation would be especally valuable for 'thei application of Article XVI." If the Council decided that a breach has been committed, it shall at once advise all members of the League of the action they should take, and-at the same time a technical committee shall be appointed to remain in permanent session to advise the Council on the practical application of the sanctions envisaged. First of all, the Council shall recommend the actual date on which the enforcement of economic pressure shall begin. "It may be necessary," the rules declare, "to recommend the execution of special measures by certain States. If it is thought desirable to postpone wholly or partially in the case of certain States the effective application of economic sanctions, such postponement shall not be permitted except in so far as it is desirable for the success of the common plan of action or reduces to a minimum the losses and embarrassments which may be entailed in the case of certain members of the League by the' application of sanctions." ECONOMIC PRESSURE. Sanctions shall begin, the rules continue, with the breaking-off of diplomatic relatiops. Then will follow economic pressure, gradually increasing in stringency. "The cutting-off of the food supplies of the civil population of the defaulting State shall be regarded as an extremely drastic measure which shall only be applied if the other measures available are clearly inadequate." Correspondence and all other methods of communication shall' be subjected,, to special regulations; humanitarian relations shall be continued. Efforts should be made at the same time to arrive at arrangements which' would ensure the co-operation of States non-members of the League in the measures to be taken. "This means, in the present case, that Germany, Japan, Egypt, and, above all, the United States, would be invited to join in the collective effort to prevent war. Their co-operation in a plan of sanctions,is not essential, but naturally every 'effort would be made to obtain it. Then, according to the rules in special circumstances and in support of the economic measures to be taken, it may become advisable (a) to establish an effective blockade of the seaboard of the Covenant-breaking State and (b) to entrust to some members of the League the execution of the blockade operations. That would undoubtedly mean, in the present case, that the British and French fleets in the Mediterranean would be called upon by the League to support the action that had been recommended. Finally, under the rules, States will be asked to take the necessary measures to enable them to enforce at short notice the necessary measures of economic pressure. ITALY'S POSITION. It should never be forgotten (adds I Mr. Grande) that while economic mea-! sures may be the cure of an evil such I as the present, economic factors are equally the cause of the evil. Never before in the history of4 the League has an Assembly shown so clearly as this year that delegates realise the force of this argument. "Mine and Thine" has been on many occasions the root cause of the world discord; at this year's Assembly the speeches have shown that delegates appreciate the dire need of removing this "mine and thine" complex. In his famous speech to the Assembly, Sir Samuel Hoare did something more than reaffirm England's faith in the League Covenant. He urged that the nations of the world should at once take steps to consider the question of the distribution of raw materials in the same tone in which, three months ago, in the House of Commons, he sympathised with Italy's need for expansion. Perhaps more than any other country Italy, by reason of her own economic drawbacks, by the immigration restrictions that have been introduced by national economic policies, and by the economic depression itself, has suffered desperately. That fact is generally recognised by all members of the League, and by none more than Britain. But Italy herself must recognise that to emerge from that slough of despond she must not take unilateral action in direct conflict with the Covenant of the League on which world peace is based.

not go back upon its principle because there was a risk that certain well-to-do people would withdraw their support from the schools.

The Rev. F. H. Wilkinson (Wellington) said that the public questions committee was not composed of pacifists but of men who gave full consideration to all aspects. In pressing for the abolition of military training the Church was simply being consistent.

To say that to object to the military training of boys of 14 was pacifism was nonsense, said Mr. Allen. If men had to be trained for war, then let adults, who could think for themselves, be trained.

The Rev. Dr. Merrington (Knox College) said that he was old-fashioned enough to believe that the stiffening of military training was most valuable for boys at secondary schools. He urged that the amendment should be supported.

On a vote the amendment was lost, 88 votes against to 66 in favour, and the original proposals were finally carried by 89 to 62 votes.