UNSWERVING LOYALTY

Evening Star, Issue 22272, 25 February 1936, Page 9

UNSWERVING LOYALTY

BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE MR EDEN'S SPEECH IN COMMONS PROBLEM OF OIL SANCTIONS (British Official Wireless.) Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, February 24. (Received February 25. at noon.) To-day's debate in the House of Commons, when Mr,Eden made his first consideiable speech since becoming Foreign Secretary, was expected to provide the Government with a fair opportunity 7 of testing the feeling of the House on various issues which are now before the country. Naturally, interest was, attached to the immediate problem of sanctions, and particularly the question of adding oil to the list of commodities which about 50 nations have agreed to refuse to supply to the aggressor nation. The addition of oil to the list has been accepted in principle by the League Committee of Eighteen, and there is no question of revoking that decision. The committee of experts who recently examined the subject reported that if the United States were to limit her exports of oil to Italy 7 to the normal level existing before 1935 an embargo could be expected to become effective in a little over, three months, but that otherwise the effect of an embargo would be limited to making the purchase of oil supplies by Italy more difficult and more expensive. The committee also indicated that a tankers sanction would have a supplementary 7 effect.

The debate takes place only a week or so before the disclosure by the Government of its main programme for reconditioning and strengthening the national defences, and this is regarded as being appropriate since the case for that programme depends largely upon Imperial and foreign policy and international obligations under the League Covenant, the Kellogg Pact, and regional agreements which Britain has undertaken and must be in a position to fulfil.

A special meeting of Cabinet was held. A wide survey of the international outlook was made by Mr Eden in the House of Commons this evening. The speech fell into three parts—Firstly, it dealt with the Italo-Ethiopian question, in the handling of which Mr Lees Smith (Labour) had charged the Government with dilatoriness. In the second part of his speech Mr Eden offered observations on certain subjects not directly related to this dispute, and the speech closed with a review of the international situation as a whole. It was clear that financial sanctions and a refusal to accept Italian exports by the States members of the League could not be made immediately effective, said Mr Eden. Their object was gradually to reduce the purchasing powers of the aggressor State. The normal exports of Italy to the nations of the League amounted to 70 per cent, of her export trade, and the power of the aggressor to purchase abroad must be seriously diminished in consequence of such sanctions. It was surely clear from the efforts which had been made in Italy that the significance of these sanctions was fully realised there. The League was now considering oil sanctions. “To my mind, oil is a sanction like any other and must be judged by tile same criterion—whether its imposition null help to stop war or not,” added Mr Eden. “ It is in that spirit that the Governments must examine it and come to their decision.” The British Government had done what it could to expedite the meeting of the committee, and the sooner a decision was reached by the committee the better. “ The fact that the League is not omnipotent should not make us weaken in our support of it,” continued Mr Eden. “ Though it cannot achieve everything, it can achieve much. There are still those who regard the League as dangerous, but nobody who knows anything of foreign affairs would regard it to-day as negligible. I think it is important that we should make it clear what kind of objective the League should, in our judgment, have in mind while it persists with sanctions. I hope that the report of the Committee of Five will be neither forgotten nor. set aside. In the view of His Majesty’s Government, the proper place for the resumption of any peace discussion is at Geneva, where the atmosphere is always favourable to members of the League who wish to avail themselves of the machinery which is there at their disposal. When I return to Geneva to resume the discussion on further sanctions, I wish to say, with the full approval of this House, clearly and unequivocably, that the British Government and this country. whilst taking their full part with others in the imposition of sanctions, desire first and foremost to see peace established on a just basis between Italy and Abyssinia.” COLLECTIVE SECURITY DETERRING WOULD-BE AGGRESSOR LONDON, February 24. (Received February 25, at 2 p.m.) Mr Eden emphasised that the Government had not withdrawn from Sir Samuel Hoare’s proposals as regards colonial raw materials, and was willing to examine the subject. He thought that the examination could usefully be hold at Geneva. The Government had expressed the opinion that the moment was not favourable for a revision of the League Covenant, and did not intend making proposals in that connection. Britain was firmly attached to collective security. The system was powerful enough to deter any would-be aggressor, whether from within or without j secondly, .Britain gas strong

enough in policy and arms to play a full part in it. “ The chances of averting a world war are slender unless we are ready to play our part to the full,” he said. Mr Eden added : “ It is no tribute to the collective wisdom of the world that, 18 years after the close of the ‘ war to end war,’ we are confronted with problems similar to those before 1914. It seems that the war generation has the task of preventing the recurrence of an even greater scale of suffering than it endured. The task can only be accomplished with the full co-operation of Britain.” Labour interjections: “The old, old story 7.” Mr Eden declared : “ The clear road to disarmament, lies ” Labourite cries: “ AVith more arms!”

Mr Eden, continuing, said: “ The House must face the issue. I personally 7 regret the increase in expenditure on armaments, but rearmament to strengthen collective security is the cheapest form of rearmament, cheaper than rearmament within the pre-war system of alliances, and cheaper than rearmament in isolation. Europe has to choose between co-operation and disintegration. Britain’s most pressing task is to bring a measure of confidence to Europe. It is to that task that we are applying ourselves in detail.”

Mr Lees Smith opened the eagerlyawaited debate before a crowded House. The French, German, Italian, and Russian Ambassadors listened intently from the diplomatic gallery. Mr Smith said that the-Labour Opposition held that Mr Eden ought himself to go to Geneva and proipose to the Committee of Eighteen the imposition of an oil embargo and leave any nation objecting to take its responsibility. Mr Eden should also appeal to the “ decent feelings ” of the United States, he said. Signor Mussolini was not the only dictator who was watching what action Britain took at this moment. An. oil embargo had become the test of the sincerity of Britain and the League. Sir Archibald Sinclair said that Mr Eden’s speech would be generally approved. He expressed the opinion that the Government had allowed itself to be bluffed out of oil sanctions by Signor Mussolini, “ who must be convinced that the League means to stamp out war as a crime against civilisation.” Mr L. C. M. S. Amery believed that the Government could have carried the Hoare-Laval ■ peace plan through the House of Commons. " VACILLATION AND INEPTITUDE " STRONG LABOUR CRITICISM LONDON, February 24. (Received February 25, at 2.30 p.m.) Mr Lees Smith said that oil w 7 as tihe only sanction which would have direct effect on military operations. It might be the most decisive embargo of all. Referring to the attitude of the United States, he argued that as long as the League seemed determined to take a strong line, opinion in the United States remained favourable. As soon as we began to waver, the United States cooled off. If we wanted to regain the United States’ support, we must take the initiative. Signor Mussolini had succeeded in holding up the oil embargo for nearly four months, and had been able during the interval to accumulate immense stocks. The tragedy was that the United States was now a dubious factor, whereas it was leading us fpur months ago. That fact was the most terrible result of the vacillation and ineptitude with which this issue had been handled. There were other sanctions applicable —for instance, the closing of ports to Italian ships. The sanction nations still used Italian passenger ships. Invisible exports might also be curtailed. “ We are exporting, for the use of the Italian armies, water from Aden, cotton from Egypt, camels from the Sudan, and fodder from British Somaliland,” he said. Mr Lees Smith concluded by asking, “What’s the use of collective security worked by a League which is supplying oil to work the military machine of the aggressor State? LEAGUE'S POWERS CRITICISED MR AMERY'S PESSIMISTIC OUTLOOK LONDON, February 24. (Received February 25, at 2.15 p.m.) Sir Archibald Sinclair, in the House of Commons, urged that coal, iron, and steel sanctions should also be imposed. If the present sanctions were the limit of the Government’s policy, they should not be embarked upon.

Mr Amery claimed that Mr, Eden’s speech implied rejection of the demand for the punishment of Italy and that the Government was still anxious to find a settlement based on the merits of the case. The League was now little more than an Anglo-French-Russian alliance, with an obsequious, ineffective claque of minor Powers. “ We should retrace our steps before it is too late,” he said. “We are drifting into a position in which the League is confronted by a combination of great Powers —Germany, Italy, Japan, and any lesser State which might join them in the hope of revenge and loot. If that.new balance of power brought us to another Armageddon it would not be upon France, but upon the British dominions that the struggle would fall.”