MR. EDEN’S SPEECH

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 March 1936, Page 7

MR. EDEN’S SPEECH

WHERE BRITAIN STANDS OBLIGATIONS OUTLINED [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS] RUGBY, March 26. The House of Commons was crowded, this afternoon, for the eagerlyawaited statement by the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the debate on the international situation. The galleries -were full. Among the diplomatists and distinguished foreigners present were the French and German Ambassadors, and Mr Norman Davis (U.S.A.). Prefacing his statement with the explanation that he proposed to use a frankness and freedom unusual in a speech on international affairs, in order to put the situation and its problem before the British people in a clear and true perspective, Mr Eden declared that they must distinguish between what might be national sentiment, and-what were,-for. good or ill, national obligations. He believed that the judgment of the. British people, even those who thought Germany had a strong case, was to deprecate that she had chosen to present it by force, and not by reason. Turning to the position of Britain, he reminded the House that the country was not freely and happily placed as an arbiter,.but was a. guarantor, with definite commitments. Coming to the four-Power proposals, designed to biydge the period before negotiations, the Foreign Secretary repeated that the proposals were not an ultimatum or a dictate, and, if the German Government could offer alternative suggestions, the British Government would be prepared to take them to the other Powers, for consideration. It . must be appreciated that, without some constructive contribution from the German side, the task of those whose sole alm and ambition was to start negotiations would be almost impossible.

FOUR-POWER PROPOSALS. The middle part of Mr Eden’s speech was devoted to an explanation af the British contributions to the security of France and Belgium, provided in the four-Power proposals, and particularly to the clarification of the suggested Staff conversations. The first contribution was for the period pending negotiations, the second would be part of a general settlement which they hoped would come out of the negotiations, and the third was in the event of a breakdown of the negotiations. The first was designed to compensate the loss of security suffered bv France and Belgium, and would be strictly limited and clearly defined bv the obligations under the Locarno Treaty. Wherever Staff conversations were mentioned in the proposals, it was clearly shown that they applied only to a case of unprovoked aggression. He hoped that these conditions would never arise, but he was confident that they were much less likely to arise if the British position was made perfectly clear. In the case of the undertaking into which Britain was prepared to enter, as part of a final settlement, guarantees between the Powers of Western Europe would be reciprocal, and Britain would’ receive as well as give guarantees, and share in the security as well as in the risk. New guarantees would be open to all the Locarno signatories, including Germany, and similarly open to all, would be the suggested supplementary staff conversations. Summing up the effect of the assurances given to France and Belgium, in the event of the failure of conciliati6n, Mr Eden said that, except in respect of parts of Europe covered by the Locarno obligations, the British engagements were precisely the same as those of any other member of the League of Nations, and, in respect ot the area covered by the Locarno Treaty, there was

NO NEW COMMITMENT.

but only arrangements for the more effectual fulfilment of the commitments already existing. Tile Government’s objectives, Mi Eden continued, were threefold. First, to avert the danger of war; seconu, to create conditions in which negotiations could take place; and third, to bring about the success of these negotiations, so that they might strengthen collective security, facilitate Germany's return to the League, and in a happier atmosphere, allow tllose larger negotiations on economic matters and arms limitation which were indispensable to the appeasement ot Europe, to take place. , What neie the chances of fulfilling that piogramme? Much, clearly, depended on Hitler’s proposals, next week. •‘We know that the Chancellor, who has I believe, appreciated the efforts which the British Government have made, will understand with what anxiety Europe awaits these proposals. They could' not insure peace unless France is ready to approach with an open mind, the problems which still separate her from Germany.” . , . Mr Eden concluded with an appeal for a united policy and common purpose, and support., irrespective ot party, for the efforts to maintain peace. , . , Mr Lloyd George said he thought the proposals for staff conversations exceedingly dangerous. Sir A. Chamberlain said the issue was whether in future the law of force should prevail, or whether for it, should be substituted the force of law. MR L. GEORGE’S CRITICISM. (Recd. March 27, 2 p.m.) LONDON, March 2G. In the Commons debate, Mr Lloyd George reminded the House that the French view of the White Paper was different from Mr Eden’s. They believed there had been a military convention. There ought to' be no ambiguity about the subject, involving the lives of millions of young men. He criticised the staff conversations, and' recalled the circumstances in 1914, how the Kaiser sent a message to the Czar: “I cannot negotiate unless yon stop mobilisation.” With oratory holding the House spellbound, Mr Lloyd George warned against a military compact, resulting in power, at the moment of a crisis, passing from governments to the military. Sir Austen Chamberlain said that unless something could be done to restore confidence in treaties, no new

would be possible. Hitler /made plenty of reassuring utterances. What is lacking is reassuring acts. [ Hitler 'offered 25 years’ peace, but Germany was already bound under the Kellogg Pact never to use war as 1 an instrument of policy. Mr Churchill said that whenever Hitler talked of peace, Germany made a new advance towards war. The violation of the Rhine menaced Holland, Belgium and France. “When the Rhine is fortified, as I presume it will be, it will leave Germany free to sally eastward or southward. All States, alarmed at the growth of German armaments, ought to combine in pacts of mutual assistance under the League Covenant, and give Germany a guarantee of inviolability of German soil. If anyone offends Germany all should turn against the offender. If Germany strikes at anyone, all should defend the victim. What is wanted is not war encirclement of Germany, but peace encirclement. NATIONAL APPRECIATION. (Recd. March 27, 1 p.m.) LONDON, March 26. The “Sun-Herald” says: “A speech the nation has long been awaiting,” was the verdict, when Mr «Eden resumed his seat, after one of the finest utterances from a British Foreign Secretary for years. He never once attempted to hide anything, or to show preference for one nation more than another, bpt gravely declared: “I don’t view the future' with a light heart.” Prolonged cheers followed his statement: “I am not prepared to be the first British Foreign Secretary to- go back on Britain’s word.” It is generally agreed that Mr Eden convinced most of the waverers, who feared that the White Paper involved additional commitments. The speech is expected' to have important reactions on the Continent, particularly as it was the first plain-spoken utterance of British policy for a considerable time. AWAITING HITLER’S STATEMENT LONDON, March 26. The “Daily Telegraph’s” diplomatic correspondent states he learns that Herr von Ribbentrop, in the course of a lengthy conversation he had with Mr Eden, did not remove the impression that Herr Hitler’s attitude diplomatically is not helpful. Her von Ribbentrop stated that he was unable to foresee that Herr Hitler would make any contribution in order to pave the way for an international conference by changing his attitude regarding the Rhineland. It is understood that Mr Eden stressed the statement that what was now required was some German concession to the view that an international obligation, freely negotiated, had been violated. The correspondent says: “Unless .this can be obtained, nobody in London believes 'that it will be possible to reach a stage for the discussion of new treaties and obligations. The Government is aware that the proposed international force for the Rhine is regarded as dead at Westminster. France, similarly, does not favour it. France points out that she did not sponsor it. She attaches more importance to the securing of a German undertaking not to fortify the Rhineland. BALDWIN—RIBBENTROP. (Recd. March 27, 2.30. p.m,) . t LONDON, March 26. Mr. Eden’s speech in the Commons, and Mr. Baldwin’s talk to Herr von Ribbentrop, are outstanding events of to-day. Herr von Ribbentrop’s interview with Mr. Baldwin lasted 90 minutes. It is officially denied that Mr. Baldwin, through him, sent a message to Hitler, but no doubt he reinforced Mr. Eden’s appeal that Germany should make some suggestion to facilitate the immediate negotiations. Herr von Ribbentrop, who is not expected to return to Germany until Saturday, at present-is studying Mr. Eden's speech.

FRENCH RECEPTION. (Recd. March 27, 2.15 p.m.) LONDON, March 26. The first reactions a’t Paris appear quite satisfactory from the French view point, said the spokesman of the Foreign Office, after reading Mr. Eden’s speech. He added that the speech was courageous and statesmanlike in face’ of the difficult English public opinion. ITALIAN COMMENT. ♦ / ROME, March 26. Mr. Eden’s declaration of Britain’s unbiased independence was particularly well received in official quarters, but it is noted he ignored the vital element of one of the Locafno members being unable to play a proper part in the conversations. Mussolini informed the French Ambassadors, and-Signor Suvich informed the German and Soviet Ambassadors, that as Signor Grandi declared at the London Naval Conference, Italy cannot take a definite line so long as she remains under Sanctions. CZECHO-SLOVAKIAN PROPOSALS. (Received March 27, zr p.m.) PRAGUE, March 26. The Government has introduced a bill providing State control for key industries for war purposes, and _ a Government monopoly of military inventions, which must not be sold abroad, conscription of women as nurses, and of factory workers for anti-aircraft and other defence measures.