Evening Post. TURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1935. IS MAD DOG ACTION A MYTH?

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 148, 19 December 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. TURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1935. IS MAD DOG ACTION A MYTH?

Evasion of a direct vote for or against the "Paris peace terms," by the French Chamber of Deputies, is a conspicuous new fact in the'cablegrams of the last twenty-four hours. While England is looking forward to the House of Commons registering today a definite decision on the "Paris terms," the French politicians, for technical or other reasons, have not done so, but have adjourned a decision till December 27; and it is from this adjournment motion that M. Laval derives such backing as he may claim ~tq have received from his own Chamber. It constitutes very little backing indeed for a French Premier who is about to explain the recent' line of policy to the League of Nations. M. Laval nailed his justification to one guiding principle—"to dp everything to avoid an extension of the conflict to Europe." This principle raises a root-question to which "Leaguers" and "realists" might offer different answers—how far can sanctions go without resulting in Italy's "extending the conflict to Europe"? AH roads in the tangled argument lead back to that one unanswered (if answerable) question; and the French Premier took his stand there evidently in the belief that no other eligible French politician is at present prepared to step into his shoes and challenge the Duce to what Signor Ceruttr is alleged to have called "mad dog action." French "realism," in so far as M. Laval is its exponent, seems to see in sanctions (that is, limited sanctions): a half-w.eapon by which the Italian invader may be induced to reduce the price 'which Abyssinia will have to pay. Between this view of sanctions, and the view which regards sanctions as a decisive weapon" by which an unbending Covenantmaintaining League will force the Duce off his prey for no price at ail, there is -the widest possible gulf. On the first-mentioned",view,. M. Laval can claim to be an astute bargainer who, at some cost to Abyssinia, has tried to buy off Italy and to save Europe (for. the moment) from war. On the second view, he is a betrayer of the League who has exaggerated the European war risk, and who has sold Abyssinia and the Covenant, quite unnecessarily. On either view, he is a man who has put forward a peace basis which candidly regards the aggressor, and which therefore may be criticised as being an encouragement to aggressors; and his answer to that impeachment would probably be "What else in'the circumstances could I do?" Or, as he actually did say to his critics, "What would you have done in my place?" If any man is going to take "mad dog" risks, that man, says M. Laval in effect, "is ntot I." Evidently he-does not consider the possibility of . mad . dog action to be an Italian pretence or a military myth. The decision then is left fairly and squarely with the Legislatures to decide whether the European war risk is exaggerated; and, if it is, to instruct responsible Ministers (either the existing ones, or others) to proceed to a firmer handling of Italy. The French Chamber has postponed that decision. What, in the face of that manoeuvre, will the House of Commons do? One feature of M. Laval's statement is that it is noticeably different in tone and in matter from that which Mr. Eden, as Acting Secretary for Affairs, made to the Committee of Eighteen on the "Paris peace terms" last Thursday, when he told this League Committee that the peace proposals were "neither definite nor sacrosanct. . . . If the League does not agree with these suggestions we shall make no complaint." In this carefully-worded statement Mr. Eden emphasises his detachment from the "suggestions." He merely tenders them. There is nothing about nailing • his colours to such a mast as that. Instead, he seems to lean to that:view of sanctions which considers them as a sufficient weapon in themselves-^-in short, the Eden speech and the Laval speech are far apart. That circumstance emphasises the meaning of the cabled suggestion that Sir Samuel Hoare's,defence will be on the lines of M. Laval's.- If so, how can it agree with Mr. Eden's 'remarks last Thursday? The answer to the question seems to be that the Hoare position does not square with that taken up by Mr. Eden as substitute at Geneva for Sir Samuel Hoare. An-explanation is needed. It,seems to be supplied by Sir Samuel Hoare's resignation, news of which .arrives as we write. ,