PRINCIPLE AT STAKE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 266, 24 October 1935, Page 9

PRINCIPLE AT STAKE

ECONOMIC STEPS ONLY No Enmity Against Italy STATEMENT BY PREMIER The Bill was introduced by GovernorGeneral’s message and urgency was accorded its passage. Mr Forbes, in moving its second reading, said that the Bill was a very simple measure designed to confer power upon the Government to provide by Order-in-Council for the application of sanctions under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Bill, as drafted, had no specific reference to .the present dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. It was in a general form and was intended to be capable of application by Order-in-Council in any circumstances which might necessitate action provided by Section XVI. of the Covenant. “New'Zealand is a member of the League,’’ said Mr Forbes, “and consequently bound by the Covenant. The Council of the League has unanimously (with the exception of Italy) decided that Italy has resorted to war in violation of its commitments under the Covenant, and 53 nations, members of the League, have approved of this resolution and have confirmed the recommendation of the Council that the breach of the Covenant should be brought to an end. New Zealand, the most distant of League members, is in direct touch by wireless with Geneva, and the Government is thus in a position to follow developments in Geneva day by day.’’ Mr Forbes proceeded to outline the proposals made by the League committee regarding sanctions which have appeared in tho cables. OPPOSITION'S CO-OPEBATION. “I should say,” continued Mr Forbes, “that in considering the steps to bo taken in this connection, the Government has had the benefit of the collaboration and assistance of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it safe for me to say that in this matter there is no question of party politics and no difference of opinion between tho various parties in the House. Indeed, the position is so clear that a difference of opinion could scarcely arise. “The Treaty of Versailles (which contains the Covenant of the League, and in particular that section which is recited in the Bill before the llou'-el was voluntarily accepted by every member of the League. By our signa ture and ratification of the treaty we voluntarily and definitely undertook dis tinct and definite obligations. In particular we undertook that when any member of the League had resorted to war in disregard of its commitments under the Covenant, certain action would follow.

“That position has now arisen and the only question before us at the moment is the simple one of whether we intend to honour our bond and carry out the obligations which we voluntarily undertook to carry out. In a British community there can be only one answer to that question. “Our decision, must necessarily be arrived at without regard to feelings of sympathy on the one hand or of condemnation on the other. It is our bounden duty to co-operate with the League, which recognises the sanctity of an international obligation, with His Majesty’s Government, and with other Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations. NO HOSTILITY TO ITALY. “The great and powerful nation against whom sanctions are about to be applied is an old and traditional friend of the British Empire. Italy was 0110 of our allies during tho Great War, and on many occasions before and since, Italy has collaborated with Britain and with the British Commonwealth to the advantage of the world. Our action and tho action of the League is not inspired by any feelings of hostility to Italy, to the Italian Government, or to the Italian people. It is animated solely by our intention to honour our pledged word and to play our small part in the common attempt to establish peace and order in international relations.

“It cannot be suggested, of course, that the action of New Zealand in this connection is likely to have any material bearing upon the efficacy or otherwise of steps to be taken by the League; but we should be failing in our duty to the League and betraying the sense of honour that is traditional in our people should we fail at this juncture to undertake our share of collective responsibility to maintain a solemn covenant that we voluntarily accepted in common with the vast majority of the nations of the world.

“British policy and New Zealand policy have no other aim in this matter than the preservation of peace and the prevention of war. We hope and believe that the steps now being taken may bo successful. If this should happily prove to be the case, then the collective peace system which has been established at Geneva and on which tho hopes of tho world have centred limy yet prove to be an effective bar i-icr against the anachronism of war. 'lllii PRIUE <ll FAILURE. “If the collective system fails in such a ease as this it will be plain that mi nialorial help can be rendered in this way lii Ihe Geneva system, and inembei- Ind people of the country need be in little doubt as to what the result of failure is likely to be. The world will be thrown back into all the welter of doubt, uncertainly and threatening gestures that existed before 1911.

“The Great War will have been fought in vain and millions who perished for tho ideal of peace will have died in vain. If there is failure every nation, including our own, must turn to rearmament as the only means of protecting itself against organised aggression. The financial burden will be crushing and the ultimate end cannot be doubted, War in a more horrible shape than any war that has yet been seen will become a probability and not a remote possibility, and in place of the earnest effort to apply reason, law and order in international relations nations will again be forced back on the old rule that ‘he shall take who has the power and he shall keep who can.’ “There could then be no cheek to the bully and his actions,’’ continued the Prime Minister. “That way lies international intrigue, international hatred, international chaos, the death of countless millions, and the probable destruction of our civilisation. By the path the League has taken there is at least a prospect—if it is not more than a prospect—that our children may be able to lead lives free from tire horrors of war. SANCTIONS; NOT WAR. “iwo points only I wish to mention. First, that the sanctions which the Co-ordination Committee recommended to the members ot the League are economic sanctions only, ahd 1 trust that these steps will not lead to any false suggestions that in the end they will result in war. That seems to mo, with the ample and confidential information at my disposal, to be highly improbable, and I hope that members and the country will carefully note this statement. Finally, anticipating the probable and natural objection to according to any Government the power to enforce such drastic measures by way of Order-in-Councii, 1 think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me when I say that there is no other effective way of making the necessary provision. “The House will be rising very short, ly and it is quite impossible to attempt to meet what may be altering requirements by means of legislation. It is only by Order-in-Council that the necessary flexibility may be obtained. In order to provide the greatest possible safeguard, any Orders-in-Council made under this provision are to be laid before Parliament and are to lapse unless confirmed by Parliament. i ask members, and, indeed, the country generally, to recognise that this may well prove to be a turning point in history. The future of civilisation is at stake and it is well worth making sacrifices for its security.” , LABOUR’S SUPPORT. Mr M. J. Savage, Leader of the Opposition, said that Labour’s passion for peace made it necessary for them to support collective action for world peace, and it seemed to him that when action was taken by the nations they would be nearer the principles of peace than they had ever been, but if it had begun earlier the task would have been easier. However, that did not lessen New Zealand’s responsibility. Mr Forbes had said that economic sanctions were intended and, although the Bill provided for action by Order-in-Council, a situation of that description could be met in no other way. Mr Forbes had also said that they might have reached a turning point in history. “Let us hope and pray this is the turning point, and that the prayers and advocacy of peace will at last be met by universal peace,’’ said Mr Savage.

There might, said Mr Savage, be some clause not just acceptable at first sight, but the main clause seemed to him to remove the main objection to a Bill of that description. That clause provided tor the right of expression of opinion as to the expediency of the regulations and dealt with ■compulsory training. Some people had visions- of the old War Regulations. He suggested to the Prime Minister that instead of penalties being imposed by summary conviction, he should allow trial by jury. Ho was glad that reasonable criticism of the regulations was not going to be sup pressed. The present Parliament would go out of existence shortly and the provision that members could be called on 'for advice left little room for quibbling. The Opposition would not object to the Bill except as regards trial by jury. Mr W. .Downie Stewart thought the Bill would be generally acceptable to the House and it was an occasion of historic importance to New Zealand. Collective action by the nations of the world must har e a deterrent effect in the future. It seemed to be recognised throughout the world that if the League were not successful on this occasion the world would go bu.c'i to the old systems of treaties. SA NOTIONS CON TRACTS. Mr W. A. Veitch wholeheartedly supported the measure, the foundation principle of which was the sanctity of a contract which must be closely guarded by all members of the League. A matter for satisfaction in this great crisis was that Britain again led the world. They had a new economic situation which never had been tried out but which on the tare of it looked like being a success, and the League had the opportunity of taking decisive action in the interests ol the peace of the world. Mr W. J. Polson thought that the attitude of Britain had the admiral ion and excited the envy of all nutions of the world. Mr 11. M. Kushworth said that u step had been taken as a meuiber <it the League, but nhat was to happen in regard to those countries which were not members of the League, such us the United Stabs, Germany, and Japan? Was there any proposal to introduce economic sanctions against those nations which were not members of the League, but which might maintain economic communications with a nation which was at war? Mr Forbes, in reply, said that there was nothing in the legislation to kin power the Government to bring h compulsory training or to send a force overseas compulsorily. A matter of that sort required separate legislation, and it was not the intention of the Government to apply Orders-in-Couucil in that way. Regarding trial by jwy, » person

charged had the right of appeal. It was not intended by the Council, at the present stage, to apply sanctions to the nations mentioned by Mr Rushworth. The second tending was agreed to. The Bill was put through committee without amendment, read the third t'liie and passed.