ETHIOPIAN CONQUEST

Evening Star, Issue 22956, 13 May 1938, Page 9

ETHIOPIAN CONQUEST

BEGOGHITION OF ITALIAN RULE DISCUSSION OPENED BY LEAGUE COUNCIL LORD HALIFAX EXPLAINS BRITISH VIEWPOINT Press Association —By Telegraph— Copyright LONDON, May 12. There was dead silence as the president of the League Council announced that Haile Selassie had expressed a wish to participate in the discussion. “It has always been the desire of the council that Ethiopia should participate, irrespective of the question of principle,” he said. “ Therefore I invite the Emperor to sit at the council table.” The big bronze doops were flung open as Haile Selassie, accompanied by two Ethiopian delegates, gravely entered. As he took his seat Lord Halifax rose and rejected the contention that Italy did not control Abyssinia. He expressed the opinion that members of the League must decide themselves whether to recognise the Italian conquest. Italy could only be driven out of Abyssinia by war.

Britain’s information was that Italy controlled virtually all the former territory. Ethiopian resistance was being continued in certain parts, but there was no organised native authority, and no central native administration with the slightest possible chance of reconquering the country. The Italian position could only be altered by concerted military action, which was unthinkable and would not he suggested by any reasonable person in any country, “ I realise that many in Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, feel that any action to facilitate recognition of the Italian conquest impinges a principle,” added Lord Halifax. “ I respect, but do not share their view. The British Government, however, does not suggest that the council or any member of the League should condone the action whereby Italy acquired her present position in Ethiopia. I do not propose that the League should modify the resolutions or decisions that it took in the earlier stages of the dispute. We declared our judgment on this issue in plain terras, and cannot go back on it. Those seeking to establish a better world basis on League principles are rightly reluctant to countenance action whereby the principles of the Covenant are infringed. “ Indeed, the Assembly in 1932 hound itself not to recognise any situation, treaty, or agreement affected by means contrary to the Covenant, hut when two ideals conflict, one devotion unflinching, but not practical, the other practical victories for peace, I do not doubt that the strongest claim is that of peace. Britain’s considered opinion is that, unless we are prepared forever to live in an unreal world, the fact of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, whatever our judgment thereon, will have to he acknowledged. Britain does not approve of the Italian methods in Abyssinia, but no purpose would be served by vain lamentations over the past.” Lord Halifax concluded: “ Weighing all the political and moral considerations, I do not believe we have the right to exclude preventive steps to secure any measure of world peace which is within our power because it is not feasible to secure full international acceptance of the high ideals of the League. Britain does not seek a decision on the question of principle, and does not suggest that the Council should impose a particular course of action on any member of the League. On the contrary, a situation may arise in which members of the League may, without disloyalty, take such action at such a time as seems to each appropriate.”-

SELASSIE’S CASE. Haile Selassie made no sign during Lord Halifax’s speech. He sat motionless, with his eyes closed. He rose slowly and said: “ Although I am recovering from an illness I decided to appear personally at the Council and defend my people’s cause.” He then asked permission for Taezes to read his speech, which declared that though the victim of aggression, Abyssinia had put its confidence in the League, but -had the misfortune of seeing nations refuse to honour their commitments under treaties of non-aggression. The League Covenant had been torn up by powerful nations who simultaneously proclaimed attachment to the Covenant. He rejected Lord Halifax’s contention that recognition of conquest would help appeasement, and said the League had to choose between maintenance of peace by law or peace at any price. Britain was asking the Council to tear up instruments designed to protect small States. The speech cited different provinces where the Italians were not in control, and dramatically denied the right of the Council to decide the question. He demanded a meeting of the Assembly. REPLY TO LORD ’ HALIFAX. Replying directly to Lord Halifax’s speech, Hailo Selassie declared it was completely contrary to the Covenant to sacrifice one people to assure the tranquillity of others. It appeared that nations were violating commitments with the object of currying favour with Italy, who. despite enormous expenditure, was unable to exploit Abyssinia, which would accept any just settlement proposed by the League, but if the appeal was not answered guerrilla warfare weald continue against Italy until either the Italians evacuated or the Abyssinian people were exterminated.

In contrast to their usual listlessness members of the Council listened to the Abyssinians with the closest attention, and watched Selassie intently.

A delegate from an East European country -was heard to say that ho did not know whether to laugh, cry, be sick, or feel that he ■was going to be sick.

M. Bonnet supported the British initiative because he said he was convinced that all possible had been done. He agreed that, in order to re-establish confidence in Europe, it was necessary to face facts.

RUSSIA SUPPORTS ABYSSINIA. M. Litvinov said Britain had the right to settle the Abyssinian affair for herself, but the League, as a collective body, had not withdrawn condemnation of an aggressor. Nothing would so weaken international law as to recognise this conquest. There would ba no reason for the League’s existence if it neglected its own principles. The Council then adjourned. Haile Selassie walked out slowly, bowing imperceptibly left and right, the others standing aside to give him free exit. A TRAGIC FIGURE GENEVA, May 11. Looking a tragic figure, with his hands folded over his black cape, Haile Selassie brightened up and smiled when he saw a cheering crowd at the station. A few Italians who were present commented: “ What a comedy.” The Emperor seemed puzzled and scratched his head while Representative Taezas explained the situation at the League. Thereafter Haile Selassie drove to an hotel, saw a doctor, and went to bed, tired, out.

LEAGUE TACTICS CRITICISED FRENCH PRESS UNEASY PARIS, May 12. The Press is critical of the tactics being employed at Geneva. The ‘ Figaro ’ asks: “ Why has Haile Selassie come if not to embarrass Lord Halifax and M. Bonnet? Geneva today is not only a useless organ, but is dangerous where internal policies subversively combine to paralyse diplomacy.” ITALIAN PRESS COMMENT ROME, May 12. (Received May 13, at 8 a.m.) The Press says: “ Admission of Dr Negus to the Council table need not be taken tragically. It expresses confidence that Britain and France will see that recognition is decided upon.” HEW ZEALAND’S ATTITUDE AGAINST RECOGNITION GENEVA, May 12. (Received May 13, at 10.10 a.m.) Mr Jordan, speaking in the Abyssinian debate, vigorously opposed Lord Halifax. He said: “This is a return to the laws of the jungle and is a direct denial of the League’s principles and another retreat from the principle of collective security. New Zealand stands by non-recognition of the resolution, and still considers it most necessary that the Covenant remains in force. She deplores anything weakening it. There is no justification for granting individual States a choice in this question.” Dr Wellington Koo deprecated force in the settlement of an international crisis. China did not subscribe to Britain’s proposals. M. Comnen (Rumania), on behalf of the Little Entente, supported England and France. After the adjournment delegates agreed that the debate was one of the saddest in the history of the League.

DEBATE CLOSED NO RESOLUTIONS SUBMITTED GENEVA, May 12. (Received May 13, at 11 a.xn.) Dr Munters, in declaring the debate closed, said the majority of the Council favoured the British viewpoint. Pfo resolution was submitted.