FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 May 1936, Page 2

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

DISCUSSED IN COMMONS MR. EDEN’S REVIEW [BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS.] RUGBY, May 6. A debate on foreign affairs was opened for the Lahdur Opposition by Mr. Hugh Dalton, who charged the Government with the responsibility ot having discredited the League of Nations, and the whole idea of collective security, and had betrayed the tiust ot the electors. This was not a narrow issue between defeated Abyssinia and victorious Italy. It was an issue between the League of Nanons as a whole, and a declared aggressor State, wnich, aided by an overwhelming superiority of armaments, and by a breach of a convention solemnly entered into not to use the most bai - barous weapons which science made possible to-day, had for the moment won in conditions of great inequality, a notable victory.. There was at this stage of affairs, no justification whatever for recognising the victory of Italy by the removal of Sanctions, whic had been imposed upon her by the judgment of the League practically unanimously. In the Opposition s judgment, the economic and financial Sanctions should continue.. The Foreign Secretary expressed regret of all at the death of Dr. Melly. Mr. Eden said the House would share the great satisfaction of the Government with the splendid work performed during the grave emergency by the British Legation guard of Indian infantry. These troops saved a large number of foreign lives.. In no single case was an appeal addressed them in vain; not only did they protect some 2000 refugees of 23 different- nationalities in the Legation compound itself, repelling at least one attack by rioting tribesmen, but they were able to send detachments to foreign missions and help individuals threatened by the mob.. “I am confident when the full story is known, major Charteris and the officers and men under him, will be found worthily to have upheld the highest traditions of the Indian Army.” . . After replying to criticisms of the Government’s conduct of affairs in relation to the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, from the time of the Wai Wai incident .onwards, Mr. Eden turned to the future. He said it was clear

THE LEAGUE MUST GO ON. They had to admit that League action had neither prevented the outbreak of war nor arrested it once begun. At most, it had maue the prosecution of the war more difficult and more costly. The world and the League were accordingly faced with the formidable question, could they anticipate in future, more vigorous action by the League taan proved possible in this dispute? Were nations likely to undertake graver risks than they had been prepared to take hitherto ? Was it possible to organise League action, that it would be preventive rather than repressive? Those were some, but only some, of the questions to be faced.. The difficulties were great, but the Government would approach them in a spirit of realism and constructive statesmanship. Mr. Eden declined to make a statement on the policy he would pursue at tne meetings of the League Council He claimed it was not unreasonable he should ask for the confidence of the House.

REPLY TO GERMANY. Turning to the communication to be addressed to the German Government regarding peace proposals, about which Mr Dalton had questioned him, the Foreign Secretary stated that he hoped it would be possible for the British Ambassador to deliver these questions in Berlin to-morrow. In reply to an interjection by Mr Lloyd George, Mr Eden said that, while the Government was aware of some points regarding which other Governments were specially interested, the questions which the British Government were putting would be communicated to the German Government on their sole authority, and their own responsibility. The Government’s objective in these negotiations was the same as it had been from the beginning. They wanted to make a period of crisis a period of opportunity. The unilateral denunciation of the Locarno Treaty had been a shock to the structure of security in Europe. It was their task to rebuild it. Britain had already made a certain contribution, for which they had 1 no need to apologise, and they proposed to go on with the task, than which they believed there was none more urgent. In conclusion, Mr Eden said they should not blind themselves to the perils of the present time. Active rearmament was taking place everywhere. In fact, some nations seemed to be arming to the exclusion of almost every other need in their national economies. The British course should be to pursue by every peaceful means, a solution of outstanding problems, to take every opportunity to promote international agreement, and at the same time to carry through the rearmament which had now become an indispensable element in the solution of these difficulties, for whatever the future of the world organisation, Britain had a great part to play, which it could, only do effectively in an armed world, if it had the means at its disposal.

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS

Sir A.' Sinclair, speaking for the Liberals, after Mr Eden, also claimed the issue was not yet decided between the League and Italy. There was a deep sense of humiliation al the sufferings of Abyssinia at the hands of the aggressor, and it would be longbefore public opinion would forgive the Governments responsible for this humiliation, for the responsibility was not the British Government’s. Sir Austen Chamberlain said the idea that Britain could play a part in the League, or give reality to the League, if it did not recognise its 1 contributions had to be on the scale of a great Power, was to’live in a fool’s paradise. In his opinion, it was plain that the threat of economic Sanctions would not deter great Powers, which had deliberately decided upon an act of aggression. For that reason, he had said in the early days of the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, he had counted the cost and was prepared to go to all lengths, with others, even to use military force. But now, the circumstances had wholly and profoundly changed. To ask at this moment for a contiunance of

Sanctions was a policy of equal danger and futility. Regarding the future, Sir Austen said the enforcement of the rule of law, which they hoped to secure by the action of the League, had failed this time, bu,t it was out of that failure one reaped success. A real effort should be made to get Germany and other countries back into the League. Consideration should be given as to whether the Covenant did not need amending, in order to enable the Council of the Assembly to act earlier, and take decisions before the catastrophe occurred. He thought the Government was right in trying to under-pin the League by a series of regional pacts and guarantees. The debate is being continued.

CHURCHILL ATTACKS BALDWIN

(Recd. Mav 7, 2.30 p.m.) LONDON, May 6. In the Commons, Mr.. Churchill declared that Britain had encountered a great disaster to all her interests throughout the world.. The Prime Minister ought to have spoken in the present debate, because he had the power. One could not have all the power, without having all the responsibility.. He had changed Foreign Secretaries as he chose, and had taken every decision.. This assumption of all power by one man, and failure to face realities in the Commons, had already injured Britain’s affairs, and must, if continued, produce demoralisation. NO DIVISION TAKEN. (Recd. May 7,2 p.m.) LONDON. May 6. The Commons’ Foreign Affairs debate ran out without a division. The sole discussion in the lobbies was Sir Austen Chamberlain’s opposition to the continuance ot Sanctions. A “Times” editorial says:—Clearly it is impossible to anticipate the conclusions at Geneva, which "will be those of all the Governments represented on the Council.