SECURITY PACT

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 June 1925, Page 5

SECURITY PACT

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S STATEMENT ' ' ' .: ' '■ ’ ' ’ BRITISH OBLIGATIONS OUTLINED (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 25. In opening tiro Security Pact debate on the Foreign Office Estimates, Air Austen Chamberlain emphasised that the policy outlined in the White Paper respecting the prbposcd pact was the policy of a united Cabinet. The Government desired the policy Avhich they pursued in matters of such consequence to Britain, the Empire and the world to be the policy of all parties and the whole nation. They Avere endeavouring to conduct foreign policy in the spirit of the Premier’s declaration that the Government’s one object shall be stability and continuity. All parties had only one object, namely, to secure peace and make war impossible, or at least as remote a danger as possible. No unilateral pact of the Allies against Germany could uoav be contemplated bi’’ the British Government. He> emphasised that no treaty.or draft treat} existed, but niereli’- a preliminary statement of Avhat the- different countries felt it would be possible for them to undertake and in Avhat direction they thought they could make an advance. Our neAv obligation Avould be definitcW limited to the frontier bctweeh Germany on the one side and France and Belgium on the other, and our guarantee of that frontier could not be invoked by a. Avrongdoer to shwld him or his Avrongdoin". Our "iiarantee Became effective "■’'ly it in defiance of treaties and .obligations under the League Covenant, a wren"doer reported to foree. The "na ran to" then beaam-o immediate a- effective. If one of the parties refused to arbitrate, or to carrv out an arbitration awato, onr guarantee could not b.'?- ipvnk"d to nretert. him—though if he did fhrt. and no more, we vrtained onr libe i-+ y subioct to our obligations und-w the Covenant, to decide Avhat, action avo should take.

Pealing with the question of the eastern frontiers of Germany, Mr Chamberlain said: “If, for example, Germany, in violation of arbitration, attacked Poland, Article Sixteen of the League Covenant came into play immediately, and France would be. entitled to treat this as an act of war against France, but Britain, in such ;i cas°, would have no obligations other than these already incumbent on us in virtue of our signature to the League of Nations Covenant. If, on the other hand, Poland similarly attacked Germany. neither France nrtr Britain had any obligations whatever, except those contained in Article Sixteen and other Articles of the Treaty. The whohe plan was a very large step towards disarmament, by removing the fear of war. Europe was still ranged into two hostile camps. The danger of a. new struggle- was increasing. Now,- perhaps. was tile last opportunitv that would be onen. The situation had beer sensibly altered ,hv the exchange of views in a conciliatory snirit'. wherein there occurred an example of Franco’s spontaneous decision to evacuate the Ruhr before the fixed date. The proposals offered a great and happy pros pect of a hotter and more peaceful world, but it would come to nothing unless Britain co-operated. He earnestly pleaded with his countrymen to co-operate in carrying out, as the national policy ,these proposals when?‘on h" believed the peace of the world depended, and for the sake of future generations to show ourselves worthy >hf our great traditions. The abstention of the British Empire and Britain paiticnlarly from European affairs, had never seemed to serve, and never would serve the- interests of peace. No nation could isolate itself to'-day. Anything seriouslv affecting the peace of Europe must affect every nation, belligerent or not. Our signature to the Covenant of the League was incompatible with isolation. Our safety lay, not in seeking impossible isolation, but in the nrudent use of our influence and power to obtain peace and prevent wa l- . The Government was of the opinion that, it would be impossible for the British Empire or Britain to undertake any uni versal extension of the’ obligations that we have already incurred as members of the League and signatories ■ to its covenant; and. therefore, held that the spe-ial needs of the moment must he met bv special arrangements of a- purely defensive character, framed in the snirit of the covenant and working in close harmonv with the League and under its guidance. Mr Chamberlain stressed the fact that the Powers entered the Pact as equals. There was no member signing me agreement who undertook obligations on one side, which, in alterec circumstances, did not apply equally to the other side. It was ,in essence, not an alliance of one set of nations against the other set, but a mutual guarantee of pacific intentions. The Pact gave no right to any Power to go through th.?- territory of any other Power to the assistance of a third. The right to march across a neighbour's territory to the assistance of a wronged nation was embodied in the League of Nation’s Covenant. It would only be when the- League exhausted methods of conciliation that the question of this right arose. Mr Ramsay MacDonald suggested that Mr Chamberlain ought to make a disarmament agreement an essential part of the scheme, just as Germany’s entry into the League of Nations was essential. expressed the opinion that the method of alliances was futileMr Lloyd George said all were agreed as to aims', but differed concerning methods. If they could get a pact not merely including a declaration from. Germany respecting the inviolability of the west frontier, but also one between France, Germany, Poland, and Czecho Slovakia, that all questions likely to arise between those nations should be referred to arbitration, it would be a great advance towards peace. If France and Germany declined to sign it, (hey could not mean peace. In such a case, Britain ought not to be in it. Mr Chamberlain, replying to the de- ’ bate, mentioned that the association ’ of Italy with tbs western pa-t guarantee would be welcomed. Britain was prepared to join the other great Powers in any conference for a further limitation of armaments, 'lhe initiative in regard to naval matters might better come from the United States, tc which we owed the first decisive inter- • national act of disarmament the world , had seen. Tho Powers with large armies, if assured of security, would probably take the initiative by making- • spontaneous proposals for a reduction ’ in the land armaments they had hithers to considered necessary for safety. The Dominions were kent fully informed of ’ .>ll the proceedings bv the British ! Government, and except for New 7e-t- -■ land, which had exur-ssed complete 1 confidence in the British Government. with which it was content to leave (lie

W tort .7- - to.. 7-^,. yyg;.- ' lecision, the ..Do'miiiions-’Jb-jV J declared no Dominion I could be committed-except by Jits own Governiumit'/ ihHiiigAjyith-Uie supporl of its own Parliament. ■*The debiite alljoiirii'cd-’ ; RUHR EVACUATION. - A . x-w; ytoLONDON,. June 25: , Thp spealieiis- tollpAviug rtheuForeigii Secretary rt-aised' nkirious questions,-based-'Oil hypothetical circiujistanccs. To most of tnese Air-Chamberlain, in winding- tip, replied- that the League of Nations aWH• decide. ■<’' Tho Ay Hiding-ujrkpeec'h, nevertheless was up' iiipre eiiiignt-enihg than' the opening- . one.lt occupied forty minutes, thbugli owing to its lateness it was only briefly’ to-ported in the papers.’ Qne new fact emerged,' namely, Mr - 'Chamberlain’s belief that Cologne will be evacuated within two months. ' It* is interesting to note in this connection that the “Morning Post’s” Paris corlespohdent understands that the last Ffeiibh soldier will have probably lelt the Ruhr by August 15. Among references made in the debate to the Dominions, Air Robert Hudsoii said Britain must see her foreign policy was such that if ever she liad to light again for a good cause, the Dominions, _of their own free will, would support her as in 1914. Mr Percy Huid said that the Empire’s policy must bo fashioned in sympathy with the Dominions’ feeling. commander Carlyoh Bellairs saiu that it was essdhlial for the Dominions 10 be with them. The Alliance of the British Commonwealth was infinitely more iniportdiit than any pact. In itply to tlib Labourite, Mr Shaw, Air tjh.amberlai'ii.stated : “We have had no iconununicatiou from Australia or Canilda definite opinion against the pact. 7The “Daily Telegraph” says that, Avhile,. comniehding the agr-een ent, it regards iAh' George and Air R. AlacDonald’s points as legitimate criticism. It adds thgt when the actual negotiations’: iveie begun, the-,, were many questions of difficulty to be faced. • .

The political, ivriters agree that Air Chamberlain's statement is too general to be teally informative, and contained nothing new to the students of the White Pa pel-. " ' ' OVERSEA S’ FREEDO AI. LONDON, June 25. The '“Daily Exjircss,”. in an editorial <>n Alt- Chamberlain's' speech, sevs: It reveals the marked fact that the Dominions will be 1 allowed to ccntra’ct out of the phot. With bi 1 without the co-operation of the Dominions, the Governmeiit is to put Britain’s s : gn;itiire to a treaty -of death. Mr Chamberlain is the-first Foreign Secretary to admit diplomatic disunity as thd-nrincipl" in ' lmperial nolic,y; ■He will go advisedly into Europe, though he knows the Empire never will. His vieAV is that though' France and Britain may be involved in Avar with Germany, ■ or Germany aiid Britain involved in war Avith France, neither Canada, -Australia, -India, NeW Zealand, nor South Africa will be at Avar Avitli anyone. It is’ only-necessary to state the position to see the' inherent -absuydi+y. z If Mr Chamberlain’s policy triumphs, the Empire, as a political cohstitu- ! tiprial military e-ntitv, Avill come theoretically to an end.