LEAGUE COUNCIL

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 March 1926, Page 5

LEAGUE COUNCIL

BRITISH POLICY OUTLINED. SPAIN’S ADMITTANCE SUPPORTED (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, March 4. Sir Austen Chamberlain, continuing his speech in the Commons, said he doubted if any previous British representative would have said or would say that the League Council must always retain its original form unal tered. He doubted, too, whether the last Assembly would have been con tent with last year’s re-elections, but for the fact that the Council would be shortly reviewed. Its composition must be subject to a free interchange of ideas, but it should be kept of a manageable size. Any increase in the permanent seats must be examined with a most particular scrutiny: Britain had not taken up the position that there should not be any addition of permanent seats, except the entry of Germany, the United States, dr Russia. There had been a private discussion in that connection four years ago."* Britain had then supported Spain’s! admittance, and he did not see anything to cause Britain to make a change now in her attitude towards that point. There were some States which were not qualified for permanent seats, but which, at a particular moment, it was desirable to have represented on the Council to argue differences and to achieve agreement. Summarised, said Sir Austen Chamberlain, the guiding principles of the British, delegates should be: First, that nothing should be done to jeopardise the Locarno Pact, or give to any Power the right to say that it had been unfairly treated or entrapped. Secondly, that if the League Council were unanimously favourable to any claim, it would have to be judged on its merits. Britain was not prepared to say a priori that no claim should be admitted under any circumstancesbut, if any particular admittance directed the way to peace, they would certainly not reject or oppose such admittance on the ground that they would prefer to discuss it in September. That morning he had accepted a German suggestion that the Powers hold a preliminary discussion before the Council met.

Mr. Lloyd George: “Does that mean that, in the absence of an agreement Britain will not vote for any addition to the Council?” Sir Austen Chamberlain: “I am not prepared to go beyond my statement. I want to stretch out my hands to others, and to see them stretch out theirs to me. I do not want to have mine tied so that my most friendly gesture must necessarily be futile. Other representatives make the same plea for the same reason —for the sake of concord and peace—meeting as friendly colleagues, intent on making the Geneva meeting one more step towards reconciliation and peace.”

EX-PREMIERS’ CRITICISMS Following Sir Austen Chamberlain Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said that the Labour Party was disquietened by the circumstances under which the present position had arisen. He could not imagine a more unfortunate diplomatic method. The specific goal of the Locarno Pact was to admit Germain ;o the League Council. The public □pinion was that Germany’s claims alone were not being considered, and that other claims were only being postponed. If they admitted Spain now it would only be one of a series of increases, and they would go blundering ilong for ten years with.an indefinitely elected Council. Mr. Lloyd George thought that they should get something more definite from Sir Austen Chamberlain, whom he begged not to destroy his Locarno masterpiece. Sir Austen Chamberlain had emphatically refused to give a pledge to vote against Poland and Spain, whether or not Germany protested. Both Italy and France were pledged to support Poland, whileJapan was going with the majority. Britain, seemingly, would make that majority. Was she merely going to ratify a general agreement arrived at? Britain could not take that part, but she must express her opinion, because her faith and honour were at stake .Sir Austen Chamberlain had not a free hand because he had declared opinion for M. Briand. Sir Austen Chamberlain: “I told M. Briand I could not give a pledge.” Mr. Lloyd George: “But you expressed your view, and you did so at Birmingham, so you have not a free hand.” /

Continuing, Mr. Lloyd George said he was afraid that the wine of the Locarno Pact was badly corked. Sir A, Mond expressed his surprise at the success of the German propaganda in this country. We were now, he said, in the most unfortunate position of quarrelling with our Allies in order to support our former enemies. We would be better occupied in developing our Dominions than in putting ourselves up to be shot at by everybody .blamed by everybody, and loved by nobody. Mr. Baldwin denied absolutely that there was any Cabinet difference of opinion .Sir A. Chamberlain’s permanent task would be to see that Germany got a seat on the Council. Bri tain could not be the arbitrator of Geneva’s agenda. He questioned if any definite statement would be more like • ly to help than to prejudice Germany’s unconditional entrance to the Council. The Ministry believed in continuity of foreign policy, and had renewed the support to Spain which Mr. Lloyd George’s ministry gave Spain. Mr. Baldwin argued that it was a fatal thing for people to begin ranging themselves on the side of France or Germany. Sir A. Chamberlain was going to Geneva, before these things had gone too far, to try to obliterate them and to reach a solution acceptable to atl. After Sir A. Chamberlain’s recent great service, it was puzzling that members could not trust him to go to Geneva without categorical instructions. He was convinced - that when Sir 'A. Chamberlain returned, members would be the first to acknowlege that he had built one more stone in the temple of European peace. The motion for the adjournment was negatived by 224 to 124.

“ENTANGLEMENT” OPPOSED (Reuter.) LONDON, March 5. The comparative smallness of the Government vote at the end of the debate in the Commons on the question

i of permanent seats on the Council of the League is attributed more to the belief that the Opposition will not force a division on the eve of Sir A. Chamberlain’s departure for Geneva, than to any desire on the part of the Conservatives to abstain from voting. No Conservatives voted against the Government. Neither of the formal motions put down by both wings of the Opposition was moved for technical reasons. There is still some dissatisfaction among the Conservatives with the position. Conservative criticism is directed against Britain being in any way tied to Spain. AH parties show dislike for anything approaching entanglement, as expressed in Sir A. Chamberlain’s opposition to any rival camps. PRESS COMMENTS. LONDON, March 5. Apart from the fact that Sir Austen Chamberlain skilfully did not commit himself in the course of his long statement in the House of Commons, the most significant fact is that neither he nor Mr. Baldwin directly mentioned Poland’s admission or non-admission, though several references were made to Spain. It may be stated, with a degree of confidence, that the explanation is that the British Government is opposed to granting a permanent seat on the League Council to Poland immediately, and possibly it will remain opposed thereto in the future ; but the Government is prepared to acquiesce in the support of Spain’s admission

immediately, in the event of Germany agreeing. This, at any rate, will be the basis of Britain’s argument aV the preliminary Sunday conversations between Sir Austen Chamberlain, M. Briand, Dr. Luther, and Dr. Stresemann. In the event of a. deadlock, the claim of Spain, Poland and Brazil will be referred to a commission for reporting upon in September.

The Press and Members of the House of Commons complain that Sir Austen Chamberlain did not answer a question as to whether the British delegation intends insisting that this meeting of the Council shall be devoted to the sole purpose for which it was convened, and no other, but obviously, if the Government’s policy is as stated above, no answer could be given. The “Daily Express” says: “No other interpretation can be given on Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech than that Spain will be admitted to the Council on Monday. The admission of Spain means later the admission of all the States ranking immediately below the Great Powers.”

\“The Times” says : “The effect of the debate is not such as to completely allay the general uneasiness. .There is really no effective answer to Mr. Lloyd George’s reminder that a policy of waiting to see what happens at Geneva may be carried too far by a great selfrespecting nation. It is not yet quite clear what is going to happen.

DELEGATES ASSEMBLING. LONDON, March 5. The French delegates will consist of M. Briand, M. Paul Boncour, and M. Loucheur. M. Briand yesterday had a conference with M. Nintchitch Noesch. To-day Count Skryznski (Polish Premier) arrived at Paris. He sees M. Briand immediately The German delegation is leaving for Geneva this evening. It is regarded as certain in Berlin that the question of Poland’s admission will be deferred until September. BELGIAN ANXIETY. BRUSSELS, March 4. In the Chamber, during a debate on the foreign budget, in response to a request to make a definite statement regarding Geneya, M. Vandervelde expressed the opinion that two nations ought to be represented on the League Council, namely Belgium, who is already there, and Poland, wjio is not yet represented. “It would be shocking if Belgium left the Council while Germany entered it,” he said, “and if we were unable to defend our interests while our neighbours in the east could do so ” CHINA’S DEMAND. GENEVA, March 4. China has formally applied for a permanent seat on the Council of the League.