AERIAL BOMBINGS

Evening Star, Issue 22990, 22 June 1938, Page 9

AERIAL BOMBINGS

NO INTERNATIONAL CODE BRITAIN DESIROUS OF FORMULATING PRACTICAL SCHEME DELIBERATE ATTACKS OH CIVILIANS CONDEMNED (British Official Wireless.) Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, June 21. (Received June 22, at noon.) Speaking in the Foreign Affairs Debate in the House of Commons immediately after Sir Noel Baker, who opened for the Opposition, Mr Chamberlain 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 it were not that China were so far away and the scenes taking place so remote from our everyday consciousness, I think the sentiments of pity, horror, and indignation which would be aroused by the 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 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 not a code of international law respecting aerial warfare generally accepted. There were certain rules in 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 to-day. 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 the rules of aerial warfare. There were at any rate three rules or three principles in 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 - make . deliberate attacks op civilian populations. That undoubtedly was a violation of international law; secondly, targets must he legitimate military objectives and be capable of identification; thirdly, reasonable care must be taken in attacking those objectives. Those were the three general rules they could all accept and the Government did accept, 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 that deliberate attacks on civilian populations would ever win a war for those who made it.

After referring to tho 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 Go. vernments on the question, Mr Chamberlain observed that he was bound to say that in the opinion of Britain far too many incidents occurred both in China and 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 Spairl. He repeated that after a 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 poiicy of non-interven-tion which it had been following since the outbreak of the civil war in Spain. He denied the suggestion that since Mr Eden had resigned the Government had changed the poiicy announced by the former Foreign Secretary regarding the protection of the British merchant marine.

The Government still maintained its policy regarding the 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 carrying arms or munitions. They had, of course, been carrying 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 it did say was that it could not see any practical means of preventing it which would not be completely at variance with its responsibility of maintaining the non-interven-tion policy. He examined a number of suggestions advanced by Mr Baker for bringing pressure upon General Franco, and in each case found the difficulties were

greater than the Opposition supposed. He came reluctantly to the conclusion that while the Spanish war continued they must expect a succession of these incidents. THE ONLY SOLUTION. 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 it would be glad, either alone or in conjunction with others, to offer its services to bring the lamentable conflict to an end.

GOVERNMENT CRITICISED "INCAPABLE OF STAND AGAINST DICTATORSHIPS " (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, June 21. (Received June 22, at 1 p.m.) Opening the debate for the Opposition, Mr Baker accused the Government of failure to take action to protect British shipping such as its predecessors had taken at the time of the Metropolitan Vickers case in Russia, owing to its sympathy with General Farnco. He replied to suggestions sometimes made by back-bench supporters of the Government that ships subject to attack had no right to the protection of the British flag, and were trading with ports in Government Spain despite known risks, only for the purpose of reaping enormous profits. His case was that the Government seemed incapable of making a stand against the demands of dictatorship States, and he contended that if only it would show firmness the situation, in place of steadily deteriorating, would be found to improve.