WITHOUT ITALY, OR WITH?

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 68, 17 September 1937, Page 8

WITHOUT ITALY, OR WITH?

If Italy desires equal participation in the Mediterranean anti-piratical naval patrol, sho should have attended the Nyon Conference. She declined to do so. Her excuse for not attending was the attendance of Russia, who had just accused Italy herself of piratical attacks. But the whole tenor of Italy's conduct justifies the belief that Italy,'for her own reasons, decided to stand aloof from the Nyon Conference, and used Russia as a pretext. Signor Mussolini—who, in an issue like this, constitutes Italy—hoped that the Nyon Conference would fail to do anything practical. He calculated that, in his absence, it would surely fail. In this, he blundered. He now sees that a Mediterranean patrol will come into being with or without Italy. Therefore he must either stand aloof and see Britain and France supplying the naval strong arm in his beloved Mediterranean — which admittedly would produce a delicate situation — or he must enter the patrol, by the late-comers' door, on some kind of face-saving arrangement, such as a demand for equal participation. Unofficial utterances in London and in Paris suggest that Britain and France will not impede a belated face-saving entry by Italy into the Nyon plan. The door is not barred nor bolted. But to suppose that Britain and France will not impede Italy's participation on face-saving terms is not to assume that Italy can fix the matter up by applying to them. An important question of procedure is raised, and it will be better understood if the position in September, 1937, is compared with the position in September-December, 1935 (Abyssinian crisis). Compare the then League of Nations with today's Nyon Conference, and compare Sir Samuel Hoare and M. Laval (then in charge of French foreign policy) with Mr. Eden and M. Delbos. The LavalHoare plan (which in 1935 unseated Sir Samuel Hoare and shook Mr. Baldwin) was the result of Britain and Franco collaborating to settle Abyssinian matters which the "Manchester Guardian" and other papers contended should/ never have been delegated to them by the League, or which should never have been delegated with power to act. The experiment of delegating League business to Britain and France in 1935 was not a success; and if the position of Britain, France, and Italy today is considered against the background of the position of these three Powers in 1935, and of the ill-fated Laval-Hoare plan, it becomes easy to understand the contention of the Geneva correspondent of "The Times" that any new arrangement with Italy concerning the Mediterranean patrol is a matter for "the whole Nyon Conference; Britain and France will take no further step alone." At present Mediterranean and Euxine riparian States, represented at Nyon, seem to be solidly behind Britain and France. The question therefore arises whether such solidarity will be helped if Britain and France keep these Nyon States fully abreast of compromise negotiations with Italy; and whether Nyon co-operation could survive a repetition of Laval tactics. At the same time, it has to be admitted that Russia's tendency to say what may be a right thing, at a wrorig moment, is a continual embarrassment, as Nyon and Non-intervention records prove. _____