RECONCILING NATIONAL DISCORDS

Evening Star, Issue 18140, 2 December 1922, Page 12

RECONCILING NATIONAL DISCORDS

LEAGUE OF NATIONS MUST CONTINUE. VALUE OF PERSONAL MEETINGS. SIR FRANCIS BELL’S VIEW. Sir Francis Bell, Attorney-General, was a passenger by the steamer laliiti, which arrived at Wellington 'from San Francisco yesterday. Sir Francis has been on a visit to England. Whilst in Europe he attended' the third plemury conference of the Assembly League of Nations at Genova. ' ‘ There is a great misunderstanding about the League of Nations,” remarked lie. “It is really a congregation of important statesmen Irony ovary country in Europe. The Prime -Ministers of a number of countries are there, and when the Prime Ministers do not attend, men like the Karl bf Balfour (from England) and M. Halnotaux (from Franco) attend, and matters got disposed of at the League .Assembly at Geneva chiefly by reason of the presence of such men and the opportunity of conference. I myself saw one serious question between the Poles and the Lithuanians which was almost impossible of settlement by correspondence, that vet was practically disposed of by a. meeting of distinguished Polish statesmen and members of the Lithuanian Government. 111-feeling is removed, 'then such matters as the provision of money to restore Austria -could not possibly have been managed by correspondence between the countries; but points of difference were settled by discussion. , “The idealism,” continued Sir Francis, “of the creation, of a. world peace through the League is quite another matter. It is prdbalbly talk rather than action j an ideal rather 'than a hope. But the settlement of questions such as I have mentioned and the difficulties between new nations and their neighbors is really effectively completed through the League of Nations. It is a very great assembly of the statesmen of ’the nations, but I do not think it can he an engine for universal ipeatoo unless America and Germany are members; but I think there are very great, hopes of America taking some part, at 3,11. events, in affairs in Europe, in that way, 'because of her immense commercial interests. Then the League of Nations has a particular relation to us, because we aie a mandatory. It is an entirely distinct function of the League to he a controlling body of mandatory Powers, and it is that part of the function of the League which, mostly concerns us in New Zealand, and. which enforces the necessity of our representation at the League, not ats an independent sovereign State, but as a country responsible first to England, and then to the League for the administration of mandated territory, and it was in that rolas tlon I had to raise my voice against the methods adopted. “Even if the League wore dissolved as a body constituted to settle the differences of nations," added Sir Francis, “it would still have to continue ids existence as a body bo which the mandatories are responsible.” , Sir Francis mentioned the conference of the League Assembly, which lasted about a month, most, of the work being done by committees, of which there are nil. Asked if the League would go steadily ahead, whether Washington same in op not, Sir Francis replied: “Absolutely; because the minor nations are determined to maintain the League and the covenant of the League. It is their only security. The League could not cease, partly because of the mandates and partly because, as I have said, of the determination of the minor nations to insist on the guarantee that they have under the League. Great discussion has taken place on the terms of that part ot -tiro covenant which fmaranteea minor nations. It was supposed those conditions were a stumbling block for America, because America will not take part in the guarantee against the aggregation of new nations, and an attempt was made during -the last Assembly to modify that clause in the covenant; but it failed, because the minor nations syvill not abandon ope jot titU)o pi