BRITISH POLICY

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 June 1936, Page 7

BRITISH POLICY

SANCTIONS TO GO

League to Continue

[beitish official wibeless]

RUGBY, June 18

Before a House crowded in every part, for his statement on the Government’s policy at the forthcoming League meeting, the Foreign Secretary announced, this afternoon, in the Commons, that, while ready to take part in whatever action might be collectively determined, His Majesty’s Government had decided for its part that there was no utility in the continuation of Sanctions against Italy. He added an assurance that the Government would devote itself to re-, storing the League to its full authority. 1 In a later stage of his speech, Mr; Eden referred to the effort of suc-| cessive British Governments to bring; about a reconciliatibn between France and Germany, and to the situation created by Germany’s repudiation of her Locarno obligations, on March 7. He said that the British Government, in the present circumstances, feltj justified in looking for an early reply j from Herr Hitler’s Government, to, the enquiries recently addressed tc>; it.

The Foreign Secretary said that the Government welcomed the opportunity of making plain their attitude on a number of the problems confronting the League of Nations, upon which the League States together would have to reach a decision before the close of the month. From the beginning of the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, the British Government has taken a full part in collective action. It might be argued that the collective action should have been more complete, Mr Eden said, countering interruptions from the Opposition, but none could deny that the British Government had played a full part, and they would continue to do so. “We shall act fully and loyally in line with any action the Assembly may decide upon.” The Government might, if they cared, Mr Eden went on, have left it at that, but at a period of difficulty in the League’s history, that would not, in their view, nor, he believed, in the view of the British people, be a very heroic course. They had responsibility to their fellow-members of the League, not only for compliance with collective decisions, but for guidance in reaching them. The Foreign Secretary reviewed the initiatives the British Government had taken at the successive crises, while the dispute had been before the League, and declared that it would not be right, at this time of perplexity, to shirk the duty of

GIVING A LEAD. “I am quite convinced that, so far from the lead we are going to give embarrassing the others, it will be welcomed in many quarters,’ he said. Turning to the question of whattne League should do in the pres.ent circumstances, Mr Eden said that the fact had got to be faced that the Sanctions imposed had not realised the purpose for which they were applied. Abyssinia was in Italian military occupation, and, so far as he was aware, no Abyssinian Government survived in any part of Abyssinia. It could not be expected that the continuation of the existing measures of economic pressure would restore the position in Abyssinia. Nothing hut military action from the outside could possibly do. that, and, so far as he knew, no other Government, and certainly not the British Government, was prepared to take such military action. To maintain the existing Sanctions, without any clearly-defined purpose, would only result in the crumbling of the Sanctions front, so that in a short time the League would be confronted' with a state of affairs even more derogatory to its authority than that which it faced to-day. In these circumstances, “His Majesty’s Government, after mature consideration, and on the advice which I, as Foreign Secretary, thought it my duty to give, have come to the conclusion that there is NO LONGER ANY UTILITY

in continuing these measures as a means of pressure upon Italy.” Though the League had not availed to prevent the successful accomplishment of a violation of the Covenant, the Government did not regret, Mr Eden emphasised, nor did he believe that their fellow-League members regretted, having made the attempt. For that they had nothing to apologise for, and nothing to retract, nor was there any question, in the British Government’s view, of the judgment passed by the League, last Autumn, on the act of aggression, being either modified or reversed. Before proceeding further to consider the futu,re action of the League, the Foreign Secretary made an important declaration on mutual assistance among the Covenant-enforcing States. He recalled the reciprocal assurances exchanged last December, under paragraph 3, Article 16, of the Covenant, between the Governments of certain Mediterranean Powers, including His Majesty’s Government and said that, in view of the latter, which view they proposed to state at Geneva as a contribution to confidence, those assurances should not end with the raising of Sanctions, if the Assembly decided to raise Sanctions, but should continue during the period of uncertainty which must necessarily follow. Mr Eden added that, in the light of the experience of recent months, the Government was determined that it was necessary that Britain should maintain permanently IN THE MEDITERRANEAN a defensive position stronger than that which existed before the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia broke out. In the middle part of his speech, which was subject to some interruption at times from the Opposition Benches, the Foreign Secretary dis-

cussed the future of the League, which, he said, needed to be earnestly and urgently considered by all its members. He must make it plain, he declared, that the Government was determined the League should go on. The fact that it had tried and failed to arrest aggression, was a reason not for regretting the attempt, but for seeking so to organise it that it should have a better chance to succeed hereafter, and with that object, the lesson of the last few months had got to be analysed.

Mr. Eden continued: In the interval before the ordinary assembly in September, each League Government ought to be engaged in a study of the short-comings, weaknesses and dangers, revealed by experience.. His Majesty's Government were so engaged most actively, and were already in close consultation with the Dominions on the subject. It was the intention of His Majesty’s Government to make the most constructive and timely contribution in their power to consideration of t his .question at the Assembly in September. He would give this definite assurance: "The Government will strive to restore to the League, its full authority, after this setback, which we admit. ’fo that end, we propose to devote ourselves."

RELATIONS WITH GERMANY Referring to Germany, Mr. Eden said that successive British Governments had long stood for a policy of re-estabnshing good relations between Germany and her enemies in the last war, on the basis of Germany’s equality and independence of others, as well as of respect for engagements undertaken. The collaboration of Germany was indispensable to the peace of Europe, and the Brittan Government had asked nothing better than to work with Germany to that end.

Mr. Eden said that the reoccupation of the Rhineland aroused the utmost anxiety and disquiet in Belgium and France, and among countries in a great part of Europe. In those circumstances, the policy of the Government had been to seek to calm the anxiety and then promote a situation in which considered reflection and careful negotiation might be possible. Unfortunately, the German Government had felt unable to make any spontaneous contribution towards the restoration of confidence.

Speaking of the enquiries designed to elucidate the German proposals, the Foreign Secretary argued it was important, for Britain and Europe to be assured that Germany now felt that a point had been reached at which she could signify that she recognised and undertook to respect the existing territorial and political status of Europe, except as it might subsequently be modified by free negotiation and agreement. A frank and reassuring response to that question, he was sure, would be the signal for returning confidence in Europe. What was the Government’s policy for keeping peace? asked Mr Lloyd George. Was it to emasculate the League of Nations to rely on pacts and in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “to limit the danger zone,” and to mark, out beforehand the potential enemy? Was it the policy of the Government to arm to the teeth in desperation, because it knew no other way out, As surely as night followed day. war must follow that suicidal policy. • Mr istanley Baldwin repudiated the exposition’s charges of treachery to the electorate. The Government were taking a line which they knew would be repugnant to large sections of the British people, because in the present state of Europe they were honestly and firmly convinced it was the wiser of two courses open to them, and the one most conductive to peace. ANGRY EXCHANGES LABOUR DENUNCIATION [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.]

(Recd. June 19, 2 p.m.)

LONDON, June 18. Tlrje Italian and German Ambassadors were present in the House.

Mr. Eden was frequently interrupted with cries from the Opposition, “Resign,” “Shame.” “Sit Down” and “Sabotage." Mr. A. Greenwood (Labour) following Mr. Eden, said that no more deplorable speech had ever fallen from the lips of a Foreign Minister. There was no word of sympathy for a broken nation, no word of condemnation for a Power that had deliberately organised poison gas. The speech meant truckling to a dictator. Millions would hear it with shame and consternation. Mr, Greenwood compared a member of the Government’s past speech, with the present performance, and said the Government had betrayed their election manifesto and committed the biggest. act of political treachery in the country’s history. He added that unless the House were given an emphatic denial it would have no alternative but to believe the Government’s policy included the limitation of League powers and reversion to regional pacts. Angry scenes were evoked by Mr. Greenwood’s denunciation of the Government for “dispensing with the League’s one effective weapon.” Ministerial benches shouted: “Will you go to war?” Labour members cried "Order!" A Conservative who attempted to put the question formally, met with cries of “Sn down.” Earl Winterton sarcastically shouted: “Brave Socialists."

Another Conservative told the Labour members: “It isn't you who will do the lighting, but us.” A Labour member retaliated: You’ll get a staff job I suppose. When me House had quietened, Mr. Greenwood said he did not believe that ■ war was the only thing left. Economic and financial Sanctions, if properly applied, would bring any nation to its knees*. LLOYD GEORGE’S CRITICISM. Mr. Lloyd George said that if the Government were going to Geneva to say that they were beaten, that the League had failed, and not to propose further Sanctions, there would be an

end to the authority of the League. Mr. Eden’s predecessor, Sir S. Hoare, had the decency to resign when the policy was thrown over. Mr. Lloyd George continued: I have been in the House, for nearly half a century, but have never before heard a British Minister holding the next mostimportant position to the Prime Minister. say that Britain was beaten. There will be international anarchy, the moment this is known. It is no use Mr. Eden saying that he is going to Geneva to reconstruct and reform the League. No nation had refused to uphold Sanctions. The ranks of the League were not broken. Mr. Eden is going to break them, and to smash the League. I wish he had left it to somebody else. Abyssinia has not been conquered. Mr. Lloyd George asked what was France's attitude. Mr. Eden replied that the new French Government said they were not prepared to take the initiative in raising Sanctions, but were anxious to work with Britain. The French Government has not given any indication of a desire to maintain Sanctions, or that they would support further Sanction.

Mr. Lloyd George proceeded: ‘“British prestige abroad was never lower. Fifty.nations will never trust this crowd again. To-night, we have had a cowardiv surrender, and there are the cowards!" Mr. Lloyd George stood, pointing at the Ministers! Mr. Lloyd George declared in ringing tones, that the danger of war was less now than when Sanctions were imposed. The fleet then was unprepared and ill-equipped. Moreover. France's attitude, which under M. Laval was hostile to Sanctions, has now changed. Spain’s attitude is also different. The whole of the Mediterranean Powers, except Italy, were ready to support you, yet you are running away. The Government’s watchword was we failed, therefore we have funked, but why has Italy’s foreign trade dwindled by over half? If the inincreasing strain had been kept up for another year, terms could have been made with Mussolini.

MR BALDWIN’S SPEECH

When v Mr Lloyd George sat down, hack benchers rose, but Labour mein>ers cried: "We want Baldwin!” The Prime Minister thereupon arose.

He claimed that, in his speeches, he had stressed the tentative nature of Sanctions and' collective security. He was convinced that the League in Autumn must consider the whole question of collective security. The views stated by Mr Eden had the unanimous support of the Government, which was honestly convinced they represented the wiser of two courses. It was necessary for the League and Europe to make up their mind whether they were prepared to pu,t their forces in a condition to support League States against an aggressor. “I feel convinced that among the common people in many countries in Europe, here, and France, there is such loathing of war, not from fear, but from the knowledge of what it may mean, that I sometimes wonder if they would march’,' unless they believed their own frontiers were in danger.” Were Britain threatened, every man would’ spring to arms, but a good deal of education might be needed before they would consent to undertake all

the obligations of the Covenant. If war came nearer than the Mediterranean, the people would pay in the first night with their lives. The first blow might come from the air. I do not see how or when the opportunity will come, but we are hoping to bring France, Germany and ourselves into a conference for the peace of Europe.”

Mr Attlee said that peace was never obtained by running away, shaking like a jelly at every dictator who shakes his list at you. The Government was not piling arms for peace, but was leading the country back to the blood-stained track of war. The debate was adjourned. Mr Attlee gave notice of motion: “That the Government by a lack of resolute, straight-forward foreign policy, have lowered the prestige of the country, weakened the League of Nations, imperilled peace, and thereby forfeited the confidence of the House.’’

Sir A. Sinclair, on behalf of the Opposition Liberals, t<lso tabled a motion against the dropping of Sanctions.

DE VALERA’S ESTIMATE

DUBLIN, June 18

Mr De Valera declared in the Dail that Sanctions had failed and must go, adding that the League no longer commanded the confidence of the people of the world. De Valera added that it would be madness to remain a member of it.

AUSTRALIA’S DECISION

CANBERRA, June 18.

Mr J. A. Lyons, Prime Minister, announced to-night that instructions have been sent to Mr S. Bruce to declare in favour of the abandonment of the Sanctions on Italy when the League of Nations meets.

CANADA’S SUPPORT.

(Reed. June 19, 2.45 p.m.) OTTAWA, June 18.

Delegates to the September meeting of the League will be instructed to support the movement for lifting the Sanctions.

The Prime Minister announced, in the House of Commons, that Canada’s policy had been that Sanctions should be applied, but had reserved the right of Parliament to speak before Military Sanctions were applied. The Government took special steps to see that the Canadian nickel did' not reach Italy, but it had been a difficult matter, because of indirect shipments to the United Kingdom and the United States.

S. AFRICAN REGRET.

JOHANNESBURG, June 17

The Johannesburg “Daily Mail” says:—With Sanctions disappears the last vestige of international respect for the pledge by any nation. It will be a consolation to recall that South Africa, when national self-respect was renounced, fought to retain her own, regardless of the consequences.