AERIAL WARFARE

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 145, 22 June 1938, Page 11

AERIAL WARFARE

BRITISH OPINION

NO ACCEPTED CODE

DESIRE FOR SCHEME

THREE PRINCIPLES STATED

; (British Official Wireless.) (Received June 22, 11.10 a.m.) I RUGBY, June 21. Speaking in the foreign affairs , debate in the House of Commons immediately after Mr. P. J. Noel Baker, who opened for the Opposition, the Prime Minister said he thought there would be general agreement with the remarks which had fallen from Mr. Baker upon the horrors of modern war and about the practice of bombing from the air. "Indeed," said Mr. Chamberlain, "if if were not that China is so far away and the scenes taking place so remote from our everyday consciousness, I think 4 the sentiments of pity, horror, and indignation which would be aroused by full perception of these events might drive this people to courses which perhaps they have never yet contemplated." Mr. Chamberlain also accepted Mr. Baker's remark that it was wrong to lay it down •that new weapons made new laws, but he said he must qualify that with the proviso that new weapons might introduce new conditions which required, if not recasting, at any rate elaboration of existing laws. The fact was that there was at present no code of international law respecting aerial warfare that was generally accepted. There were certain rules of international law established for sea and land warfare, and those rules or principles underlying them were applicable to aerial warfare, but they did not entirely meet the cases which had to be met today.

FORMULATION OF SCHEME. : The Premier reminded the House ' that the Government was engaged upon a careful survey of the whole [ position with a view to formulating a practical scheme which could be put before other countries for acceptance or modification, with a view to reaching some international understanding on rules of aerial warfare. At any rate there were three rules or three principles of international law which he thought they might say were applicable to aerial warfare as fully as they were to war on land or sea. Firstly, it was against international law to bomb civilians as such and to makei deliberate attacks on civilian populations. That undoubtedly was a violation of international law. Secondly, targets must be legitimate military objectives and be capable of identification. Thirdly, reasonable care must be taken in attacking those objectives. Those three rules, he said, they could all accept, and the Government did accept them, but obviously when they came to practise.them there were considerable difficulties. A MISTAKEN POLICY. Mr. Chamberlain declared emphatically that he could not too strongly condemn the idea that It should be part of a deliberate policy to try to win a war by demoralising a civilian population through the process of bombing from the air. That was absolutely contrary to international law, and he gave it as his opinion that it was in addition a mistaken policy. He did not believe deliberate attacks on civilian populations would ever win a war for those who made it. After referring to difficulties which arose in the practical application of the general rules he had enunciated, and having repeated the wish of the Government to produce practical proposals before approaching other Governments on the question, Mr. Chamberlain observed that he was bound to say that in the opinion of Britain far too many incidents had occurred both in China and in Spain where those general rules had been plainly disregarded. ATTACKS ON SHIPS. Mr., Chamberlain then turned to the question of attacks on British ships in ports in Government Spain. He repeated that after careful and exhaustive examination of all possible methods of giving aid to British ships attacked in territorial waters, the Government had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to do so short of intervening in the war and cutting across the whole policy of non-inter- ; vention which it had been following i since the outbreak of the civil war in : Spain. He denied a suggestion that since Mr. Eden resigned the Government had changed the policy announced by the former Foreign Secretary" regarding protection of the British merchant marine. The Government still maintained the policy regarding attacks on British ships on the high seas, but could not undertake in every single case that there should be a British warship within reach.

Mr. Chamberlain said there was no foundation for the suggestion that British ships had been carrying arms or munitions. They had, of course, been carrying food, coal, oil, and other stores of value in war, and that was the reason why they had been attacked, but the Government did not admit the right of General Franco or anyone else to attack these ships. What they did say, he continued, was that they could not see any practical means of preventing it which would not be completely at variance with their responsibility of maintaining the non-intervention policy. THE BEST SOLUTION. He examined a number of suggestions advanced by Mr. Baker for bringing pressure upon General Franco, and in each case found that the difficulties were greater than Jhe Opposition supposed. He came reluctantly to the conclusion that while the Spanish war continued they must expect a succession of these incidents. The sole satisfactory solution of the question would be the termination of the war itself. | On that, all he could say was that the Government would from time to time take soundings with a view to seeing whether there were any favourable prospects of successful mediation, and when that time came they would be glad, either alone or in conjunction with others, to offer their services to bring the lamentable conflict to an end.

MR. BAKER'S SPEECH

FIRM STAND WANTED

(British Official Wireless.) (Received June 22, 1.20 % p.m.) RUGBY, June 21

Opening the foreign affairs debate for the Opposition Mr. P. J. Noel Baker accused the Government of failure to take action to protect British shipping "woh «s..their; predecessors had taken