SANCTION ARTICLES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 20 December 1924, Page 15

SANCTION ARTICLES.

LORD PAR-MOOll ON THE PROTOCOL.

A WARNING FROM THE TIMES

POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS FOR

BRITAIN

. On account of the prorogation of the British Parliament Lord Parmoor was prevented frorii giving an explanation of the Geneva Protocol, but he has repaired this somewhat by writing a letter to The Times on the subject. He claims oh behalf of the British delegation a notable success. '■ “It Would have been impossible to obtoin unanimity for tlie.proposals contained in the Protocol, ” lie continues, “unless France and Great Britain had come to an agreed understanding. This understanding was brought about by a perfectly frank statement, though this statement was made in friendly terms, and With an earnest desire to bring about a settlement. For good or for bad, the Protocol contains in all its more important articles the imprint of the work of the British Delegation. It is a mere fiction to suggest that this Delegation was wanting in influence, though it is no doubt open to say that this influence was not effectively used. . “The criticisms advanced against the Protocol refer to the sanction articles. These criticisms are based on a double misunderstanding, a .misunderstanding of the Provisions in the Covenant of the League as it noW stands, and a misunderstanding of the provisions inserted in the Protocol. In the Covenant, as it stands, the, obligations in Articles 10 and 16, to preserve, as agaihst external aggressions the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of tfle League and to protect the Covenants of the League, are undertaken not by the League or Council, but by the members of the League, This is a vital distinction, and it is not affected by the power of the Council to give advice or to niake recommendations. Each s'ignbtory of the. Covenant is bound by these undertakings. They are indeed treaty ooligatiolis of an especially wide importance. No country nas iiisisted mere strongly than Great. Britain that a' scrupulous respect should be given to all treaty obligations. At the same time the method by which the obligation should be fulfilled is left toi the unfettered discretion of the Government, for the time beiiig, of each signatory, aiid there is .no power of any kind to interfere in the separate and independent right of each nation to be the sole judge of the way in which its own military, naval, or air , forces may be employed. “The question, then, reduced to its i „ simple form, is whether the Protocol alters the character of the obligation undfef which the members of the life-ague already stand, in such a way as to impinge upon the sovereign rights of aiiy nation in the use of its military, naval or air forces. There can only be a negative answer. The Sanction Article of the Protocol does not purport to create and does not create any new sanctions. It makes operative, under the conditions specified, the sanctions mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 16 6f the Covenant. I do not think that the paragraph of this article which interprets the obligations undertaken by each of the signatory Stages goes bfeyond the provisions in the Covenant, flmt quite certainly it does not in any way interfere with the sovereignty of a nation as regards the use of its military, rictval, or air forces. This is the nature of the allegation so freely made against the action of the British Delegation, and against which I desire to enter an earnest protest.” In a leading article The Times is very guarded in its statements, and advises the consideration of the effects of the Protocol on ,a variety of possible disputes in the continents and oceans where British interests come into contact with those of many very different s peoples. “The facts of geography and history,” says _ The Times, must he taken into consideration as well as the principles of law. And it must always be borne in mind that the League does not yet include all the principal nations, and that the United States, without whose active participation the complete scheme must remain inoperative, still remains outside. If it could be clearly proved

that the Protocol does really establish the bases of a system of general security there could be little doubt that nearly all civilised nations would be willing enough to ratify it as it stands. To take our own case, however, the British nation cannot risk a plunge into the unknown. It cannot lightly accept the definite obligation of providing—in adition to its own defence—for the. application of sanctions for objects that are so far not at all clearly defined. The* Geneva scheme is professedly a world-scheme, a plan imposing restraint upon all the nations-. It particularly affects the British Empire, which has national interests in every quarter of the globe.

“The exact nature of British military and naval obligations under the Protocol must now be deduced from its actual terms. These terms are by no means wholly clear, and there is no occasion either to insist on a speedy ratification of a not quite intelligible proposal or to assume outfight that the Protocol cannot be ratified. The members of the present Government, including those who were delegates at Geneva, have so far thrown little light on the subject.” Professor Gilbert j\lurrav expresses the hope that the subject of the Protocol should be kept out of the domain of party politics. Lord Robert Cecil supports this, but mentions in a letter to The Times that- some of the Prime Minister’s statements on the subject have been as provocative as they were inaccurate. “For instance,” he writes, “his Glasgow picture of a dying League,, recalled to life by the appearance at' Geneva of himself and Lord Parfnoof, puts to shame all the imaginative writers of the day. I do not know what the effect oin. the polls would be of a discussion oh the subject on the hustings. But lam sure it Would be bad for the League, and would probably embroil fetill further the present very critical, if not dangerous, situation of foreign affairs.”