FATE OF LEAGUE

Grey River Argus, 11 February 1938, Page 4

FATE OF LEAGUE

REFORM DELAYED Views of Sanctions Advocates GENEVA, February 1, The Committee of Twenty Eight decided to send the members’ declarations and documents regarding reform to the Assembly after which it will adjourn until it receives directions from the Assembly. “The Times” Geneva correspondent points out that. this means reform is in abeyance until September. M. Litvinoff (Russia! strenuously defended Sanctions, upon the resumption of the committee of twenty-eight. He ridiculed believers that the League's slogan should be “everyone for himself, and God for us all.” Dr. Koo (China) said the abandonment of the coercion would result,'in the League’s destruction. There were no inherent defects in the covenant. The trouble was caused by the most able to give it withholding support. Senor Del Vayo (Spain) said that Italy, Germany and Japan were. aggressors sowing seeds of death and destruction. They hated the League because they knew it' was still able to halt aggression. The people of Spain were suffering atrociously. He therefore asked for the application of international law against the trio, not because they were Fascists, but because they were outlaws. Senor Del Vayo added that Spain was opposed to the theory that any member-of the League could be neutral, because it was contrary to the covenant. All provisions of articles sixteen and ten should be preserved to prevent war.

M. Boncour (France) in a 45 minutes’ speech, flatly opposed changes in the covenant, stating: “It isn’t worth weakening the covenant to bring back any nation to the League.” He denied that Sanctions were ineffective. On the contrary, they were likelier to be more effective to-day than ever, as modern armies, owing to aviation and mechanisation, were in constant need of raw materials. He added that short brisk wars could not succeed, as was shown by Spain. Even bombing open towns had not hastened the end of that war. The only way to preserve peace was to make the nation wanting war to realise that it would be opposed not only by the big Powers, but also the smaller ones, in applyng sanctions. Switzerland’s contention was entirely contrary to the spirit of the covenant.

Lord Cranbourne, summing up, said that Britain had not weakened, and did not intend to weaken, in support of the League, but she doubted whether further progress was at present possible. Time for reflection and consideration was essential; concerning which he recalled Mr Eden’s statement that over-great precipitation would not do any good and may do infiinite harm.