CANDID SPEECH

Evening Star, Issue 22326, 30 April 1936, Page 11

CANDID SPEECH

LITVINOFF ON GERMANY REFUSAL JO TURN A BUKO EYE ... BREACH OF PLEDGES At the public session of the League Council, which opened at St. James’s Palace on March 17, Mr Stanley Bruce said that before calling upon tne next speaker upon the resolution which was tabled on Monday night by the representative of France on behalf of France and Belgium, he desired on behalf of the Council to announce that a reply had been received to the telegram which was sent to the German Government by the Secretary-General, reported the * Manchester Guardian.’ The telegram, he said, read as follows : I acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your telegram of March 16, and I have the honour to inform you that Ambassador von Ribbentrop will represent the German Government in the Council of the League of Nations in the examination of the question raised by the Belgian and French Governments. He will be available in London from Thursday morning onwards. ' BARON VON NEURATH, Minister of the Reich for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Bruce went on after reading tins telegram: “I have, on , behalf of the Council, seen the German Ambassador this afternoon,* and have urged upon him that he would request his Government to endeavour to expedite the arrival of their representative here so that he would be able to take part in the deliberations of the Council to-mor-row, and in the meantime, on behalf of the Council and under their instructions, I have issued an invitation to the German Ambassador to take his place at the Council Chamber as an observer or as a representtive if he has the authority of his Government. That request the Ambassador is now submitting to his Government in Berlin.” TURKEY’S STAND. Mr Tewfik Rustu Aras (Turkey) said the parts the Council had to play in international disputes were those of mediator and of guarantor of security. In his opinion, the Council c, uld not discharge its two primary duties if it were to confine itself solely to the duty of arbitrator entrusted to it by the Rhine Pact. In the discussion there could be no question of mediation which would not be abortive before the Council had given full satisfaction to France and Belgium. If there were to be any mediation, he should prefer that that mediation should be the mediation of the Council rather than any other arrangement. He stated that the settlement of this question constituted the backbone of European security. Mr Litvinoff, the delegate of the Soviet Union, said: “ This is the third time in the short period of 18 months during which the Soviet Union has been a member of the League of Nations that its representative in the Council of the League has had to speak on the subject of a breach of international obligations. “ The first time was in connection with the infringement by Germany of the military clauses of the Versailles Treaty. The second time was on the occasion of the Italo-Abyssinian conflict. The third, to-day, .is in consequence of the unilateral infringement by Germany of both the Versailles TVeaty and the Locarno Pact. DISINTERESTED. “ In all three cases the Soviet Union was either formally disinterested be-

cause it took no part in the treaties which had been infringed, as in the case of those of Versailles and Locarno, or, as in the case of the Italo-Abys-sinian conflict, its own interests were not in the least affected. These circumstances have not in the past prevented, and will not in the present case prevent, the representative of the Soviet Union from taking bis place among those members of the Council who register in the most decisive manner their indignation at a breach of international obligations, condemn it, and support the most effective measures to avert similar infringements in the future. “ This attitude of the Soviet Union is predetermined by its general policy of struggling for peace, for the collective organisation of security, and for the maintenance of one of the instruments of peace—the existing League of 1 Nations. We consider that one cannot struggle for peace without at the same time defending the integrity of international obligations. One cannot struggle for the collective organisation of security without adopting collective measures against breaches of international obligations. “ We do not, however, class among such measures collective capitulation in face of the aggressor, in face of an infringement of treaties, or collective encouragement of such infringements, and still Jess collective agreement to a bonus for the aggressor by adopting a basis of agreement or other plans acceptable or profitable to the aggressor. We cannot preserve the League of Nations if it does not carry out its own decisions, but, on' the contrary, accustoms the aggressor to ignore its recommendations, its admonitions, or its warning. ‘‘A LAUGHING STOCK.” “ Such a League of Nations will never be taken seriously by anyone. The resolutions of such a League will only become a laughing stock. Such a League is not required, and 1 will go further and say that such a League may even be harmful, because it may lull the vigilance of the nations and give rise to illusions among them which will prevent them from themselves adopting the' necessary measures of self-defence in good time.” He said that the characteristic feature of all the three cases he had mentioned was their simplicity. The question under discussion at the present session even surpassed the preceding cases by its simplicity. “ Here,” he aid, “ we find not only a substantial infringement of treaties but the ignoring of a particular clause in a treaty providing a method of settling disputes which may arise in the event of an alleged or actual infringement of the treaty.. “ The German Government asserts that France was the first to break the Locarno Treaty in the spirit and the letter by concluding a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet'Union. It applied for an explanation to the other Locarno Powers—namely, Great Britain and Italy. One must imagine that if these had agreed with the German theses that the Franco-Soviet Pact is incompatible with the Locarno Treaty Germany would have utilised

their conclusions to the utmost. But as these Powers came to a different conclusion, Germany peremptorily declares that France, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy—that is, the other Locarno Powers—are interpreting the Locarno Treaty incorrectly, and that the only correct interpretation is her own. WILL NOT HOLD WATER. ” That the German assertion of the incompatibility of the Franco-Soviet Pact and the Locarno Treaty will not hold water follows with absolute clarity from the entire defensive character of the pact. “ The whole world-knows that neither the Soviet Union - nor France has any claims to German territory and is not striving to change the frontiers of Germany. If Germany undertakes no aggression against either France or the Soviet Union the pact will not begin to operate. “ But if the Soviet Union becomes the victim of an attack by Germany the Locarno Treaty gives France, as any other member of the League, the unquestionable right to come to the assistance of the Soviet Union.” The German Government had put forward another Jine of argument. “ It declares that the demilitarisation of the Rhineland is itself unjust, contradicts the principle of the equality of States, and imperils the integrity of the German frontier. This argument sounds apparently more convincing, and in any case more sincere, than the sophistry about the Franco-Soviet Pact.” M. Litvinoff said that the League could not settle questions and still Jess justify a breach of international obligations by an appeal to abstract principles. “I do not think,” he added, “ that the changes which have taken place in the ideology and foreign policy of Germany would permit one to assert that peace in Europe at the present time would gain from the remilitarisation of the Rhineland zone, the more if it is carried out unilaterally in breach of obligations voluntarily undertaken by Germany. “ Neither the foreign policy of the present German Government nor the preaching of aggression and international hatred and the glorification of the spirit of war initiated and ceaselessly maintained in Germany during the last three years permit us to make such an assertion. HITLER’S STATEMENT. He reminded them of the “ political testament ” of Herr Hitler in his book, ‘Mein Kampf,’ and quoted:— The political testament to the German nation for its external activity will and must always proclaim—never permit two Continental Powers to arise in Europe. In every attempt to organise a second military Power on the German frontier, even though it be by the formation of a State capable of becoming a military Power, you must see an attack on Germany and you must consider it not only your right, but your ■ duty to prevent such a State coming into existence by all possible means, including the use of force of arms, and if such a State has already come into being it must once again be shattered.

“ These, gentlemen, are the purposes for Which Germany requires the remilitarisation of the Rhineland zone bordering on France. I ask you, must and shall the League of Nations condone the promotion of this objective? “ As for the defence of Germany, if there is one State in the world which is threatened by no external danger it is Germany. I know of not a single country which makes any territorial claims on Germany, and know of no literature preaching an attack on Germany. There is no idea of encircling Germany. “ I have examined both the arguments put forward by the German Government in justification of the breach of international obligations which it has committed. Apparently it is not itself certain that they carry conviction, and realises itself that it has caused a breach in the existing system for the organisation of peace. “ NEW ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE EUROPE.” “ The German Government is therefore trying to create the impression of readiness to put right the wrong it has committed by proposing a new. scheme supposedly for a still better organisation of peace.” Referring to Germany’s offer of a pact of non-aggression for 25 years, he said that the Locarno Treaty which Germany had just torn up represented just,such a pact of non-aggression, with the same guarantees, and its validity was not for 25 years, but for an indefinite period. “ Herr Hitler’s proposal amounts to this, that while depriving France and Belgium of certain guarantees with which they were provided by the Locarno Treaty, he wants to retain for Germany all the benefits of that treaty in their totality. • “ This proposal of Herr Hitler’s,” he said, “ gives me the impression that we are faced with a new attempt to divide Europe into two or more parts with the object of guaranteeing nonaggression for one part of Europe in order to acquire a free hand for dealing with other parts. “ As 1 have.already had to point out at Geneva, such a system of pacts can only increase the security of the aggressor and not the security of peaceloving nations.” They would welcome the return to the League of Hitler’s Germany if and when they were convinced that she had recognised those fundamental principles on which the League rested. “ Analysing the sum total of ,Herr Hitler’s proposals, I come to the conclusion that they not only would represent no compensation for the harm done to the organisation of peace by condonation of his breach of international treaties, but would themselves strike a blow at the organisation of peace, and, in the first instance, at the League of Nations.” “ I have permitted myself to express my views with complete frankness. It was easier for me to do so than for my colleagues, because the manner in which Herr Hitler allows himself to speak in public of the State I represent liberates me from the necessity of resorting to circumlocution and diplomatic niceties. “ A SMOKE SCREEN.” “ I have all the ipore right to do so because the whole sense of Herr Hit-' lar’s statements and of his proposals in the sphere of international political relations amounts to the organisation of a campaign against the peoples of the State i represent and to the formation of a coalition against them of the whole of Europe, the whole of the world.

“His aggression may. in fact, aim at other countries in the . immediate future. His attacks on the Soviet Union may so far serve merely as a smoke screen for aggression which is being prepared against other States, but the very fact that he selects the Soviet Union for this purpose as the target of his incessant attacks, and that he has done this again in connection with his breach of the Locarno Treaty, gives me the right to speak openly and with especial energy of the inward essence of Herr Hitlers aggressive foreign policy. “ In doing so I express my firm confidence that hie proposals which follow from such a foreign policy will, as they now stand, never become the

basis of an agreement between other members of the League.” Mr Litvinotf said that he did not wish it to be thought that the Soviet Union declared itself against negotiations and a peaceful settlement or the dispute. Such a conclusion would present a completely false picture of their conception. “We are resolutely against anything that might bring a war nearer by even a single month. But we are also against hasty decisions dictated rather by fear and other emotions than by a sober reckoning of realities —decisions which, while represented as eliminating the causes of an imaginary war to-day, create all the premises for an actual war to-morrow. WOULD-BE DICTATORS, “We stand for an international agreement which would not only consolidate the existing foundations of peace, but if possible would likewise create new foundations. But we object to the idea that withdrawal from the League of Nations, brutal infringement of international treaties, and sabrerattling should confer upon a State the privilege of dictating to the whole of Europe its conditions for negotiations, of selecting the participants in those negotiations to suit its convenience, and of imposing its own scheme for an agreement. “ We are against negotiations proceeding on a basis which disorganises the ranks of the sincere partisans of peace, and which must inevitably lead to the destruction of the only interstate political organisation—the League of Nations.

“ We are for the creation of security for all the nations of Europe and against a half-peace which is not peaco at all, but war. But at whatever new international agreements we might desire to arrive, we must first of all ensure their loyal fulfilment by all those who participate in them, and the Council of the League must declare its at--titude towards unilateral infringements of such agreements and how it intends and is able to react against them;

“ From this standpoint the greatest possible satisfaction of the complaints made by the French and Belgian Governments becomes of exceptional importance. I declare in the name of my Government its readiness to take part in all measures which may be proposed to the Council of the League by the Locarno Powers and which will be acceptable to the other members of the Council.”

Mr Augustin Edwards (Chile) said if violation of the Treaty of Locarno was duly noted and found, his country would unhesitatingly discharge its duties as a member of the Council.