WILL FRANCE FOLLOW BRITAIN'S LEAD?

Horowhenua Chronicle, 13 September 1935, Page 7

WILL FRANCE FOLLOW BRITAIN'S LEAD?

Britain's Fidelity to League

TOREIGN MINISTER'S NOTABLE SPEECH PROTECTION OF WEAKER NATIONS GENEVA, Sept. 1.1. Addressing the League Assembly—the first speech he has made at Geneva —the British Foreign Minister, Sir Samuel Hoaie, spoke extremely slowly and with the utmost deliberation and clarity. He disdained rhetoric. Most of the delegates listened through earphones. Four hundred and fifty journalists were present. Baron Aloisi, leader of the Italian delegation, showed no more trace of emotion than the Ethiopians as Sir Samuel Hoarc's address proceeded. The reference to war for war's sake «<ppcared to discomfort the Italians. Nevertheless, Sir Sainual held out the •olive branch to Italy with a tentative •offer to discuss the economic aspect of advantages enjoyed by colonial Powers. Sir Samuel was warmly applauded by most of the delegations. The Italians -understandably did not participate, but the Ethiopians showed special enthusiasm. Often during his speech Sir ■Samuel looked straight at Baron Aloisi, notably when lie said, "We want no more empty chairs at the League" The lobbies buzzed with discussion •during the translation. The chief question asked was how much Sir Samuel Hoare implied by his reference to eoJ■onial supplies of raw materials. Sir Samuel commenced by saying that •delegates were there as members of a collective organisation, each pledged by certain ebligatious and each an:;ion.s to safeguard the future of the world bl ■collective action in the cause of peace and progress. He reaffirmed the support of the League by the British Governfynent and the interest of the British \pe«P lc in collective security. In spite -of any national faults and failings he believed that British public opinion had wsuaily shown sound instinct on big iasnea and had usually in moments oi crisis expressed itself with firmness, justice, and common sense. British ipuiblic opinion was firmly behind the "Lte&gae when it was founded. British people supported the League for no selfish motive. They had seen that the old system of alliances was unable to prevent world war. As practical men ■and women they wished to find a more ■effective instrument for peace. They

> Laval's Appeal to Mussolini, British Minister's Masterly Speech Acclaimed. Received Thursday, Midnight. * LONDON, Sept. 12. The British Press practically unanimously supports Sir Samuel Hoare's declaration. The exceptions include the Daily Mail, which says the speech has heightened the alarm of -die public that the country might be dragged into a quarrel \vlnen will develop a mere African dispute into a European conflagration. . . ' . The-Morning Post stresses the fact that tncre is nothing m the speech to suggest that England will act alone. She could hardly do so because her disarmament made it impossible loiter to assume the role of sheriff to the League or the policeman of the world. The Daily Telegraph's Geneva correspondent learns tliat M. Laval has been in telephonic communication with Mussolini. The correspondent acids that M. Laval can now hardly longer delay his choice between Franco-Italian co-operation or standing foursquare behind the League. M. Herriot feels that there is no room for divergence of opinion. That cxplans why M. Laval postponed his speech in the Assembly until to-morrow. The Daily Express' Geneva correspondent goes further and he says M. Laval telephoning immediately after Sir Samuel Hoare's speech pleaded with the Duee for a gesture of conciliation failing which France would be obliged to side with Britain. He will have Mussolini's answer by Friday. If the Duee sticks to his guns France will proclaim solidarity to Britain. A curious report emanates from the Petit Parisien's special correspondent at Greneva and published in the Times. It is to the effect that M. Laval in the course of a conversation with Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Anthony Eden last evening declared that if the British Government in recent years had shown but a tithe of its present zeal for the principles of the League, this disastrous situation would never have arisen. M. Laval is reported to have reproached the British Government for failing to maintain continuity of policy and with choosing to stand for the first time on an issue directly threatening the peace of Europe. There was a startling development in this connection early this morning. The Times in its late edition states it is understood the French Government through its Ambassador in London inquired of the Foreign Office whether it may be assumed that the firm attitude now being taken by Britain at Geneva in regard to a case of aggression will henceforward also be adopted in Europe, especially in the event of an act of aggression being committed against Austria. The reply will be awaited with interest elsewhere than in Paris and London, but it is not difficult to deduce this from Sir Samuel Hoare's speech. Correspondents of the London Press at Geneva mention the effect of the speech upon the representatives of the smaller Powers who are openly rejoiced to see Britain taking the lead in Europe. One delegate designed the proposed world inquiry into the distribution of raw materials as a magnificent offer. Another said: "We should be blind to our own vital interests if we did not follow such a lead." The Times' Geneva correspondent says the speech was masterly and historic. It is generally accepted as the most momentous and most satisfactory statement of British policy heard in Geneva for many years and it has ended the ambiguity with which British policy has so often been reproached.

were deeply and genuinely moved by aj great ideal. In spite of experiences of the past the British people had chin* to their ideal, and they believed that collective security founded on international agreement was the most elFective safeguard of peace and would be gravely disturbed if the new instrument that had been forged were blunted or de-stro}-ed. Will and Power to Fulfil Obligations. It was necessary, however, not only to have an ideal but to consider what, were the best measures for achieving it. But in determining the conditions in which the Council was working they must first clear their minds as to wimt the League was and what it was not. The League was not a super-State nor even a separate entity existing of itself independent of or trauseending States which made up its membership. If il succeeded it was because its member* had in combination with each other the will and power to apply the principles of the Covenant. If it failed it was because its members lacked either the will or power to fulfil their obligations. Proceeding, Sir Samuel discussed collective .security—the organisation of peace and the prevention of war by collective means. It meant much • more than what were commonly caned sanctions. It meant the whole Covenant. It assumed scrupulous respect for all Treaty obligations. Its foundation was a series of fundamental obligations, accepted by the members, to submit every dispute that was likely to lead to war to peaceful methods of settlement according to the procedure provided by the Covenant. The two principal conditions on which the system of collective security was designed to operate were, firstly, that the members should have reduced their arm:: men !s to the lowest p.tint consistent v: it'll national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations; and secondly, that the possibility was open, through the machinery of the League, for modification by consent and by peaceful means of international conditions whose continuance might be a danger to peace. Obligation for Collective Action To complete the system there was normally an obligation to take collective action to bring war to an end in the event of any resort to war in disregard of the Covenant obligations. Underlying these obligations was the expectation that this system would be subscribed to by a universal world of sovereign States or by far the greatest part of it. The whole system was

the most inspiring conception in the history of mankind. Its realisation, however, could not be easy, even in the most favourable circumstances. He proceeded to refer to some of the unfavourable circumstances at the present time and the much more grievous burden which in consequence lay upon faithful members to preserve .wltft, had been won in the struggle for the organisation of peace. A Common Obligation "Still." ho proceeded, "the obligations of the Covenant remain. Their burden has been increased manyl'okl. But one thing is certain. If the burden is to be borne it must be borne collectively. If the risks for peace must be run they must be run by all. On behalf of his Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom I can say that they will be second to none in'their intention to fulfil within the pleasure of their capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon them. "It is in accordance with what we believe to be the underlying principles of the League that our peopie have steadily promoted, and still promote, the growth of self-government in their own territories. It was, for example, only a few weeks ago that I was responsible for helping to pass through the Imperial Parliament a great and complicated measure for extending self-government in India. Following this same line of thought, we. believe that small nations are entitled to a life of their own and to such protection as can collectively be afforded to them in the maintenance of national life. We believe, on the undoubted evidence of past, and present times, that all nations alike have a valuable contribution to make to the common stock of humanity. And w; believe that the backward nations are, without prejudice to their independence and integrity, entitled to expect that that assistance will be afforded them by more advanced peoples in the development of their resources and the building up of: their national life, j am not ashamed of our record in this respect, and I make no apology for stating it here. But my picture is not yet complete, for I must underline one of its principal features. Changes by Peaceful Means "It is not enough to insist collectively that war shall not occur or that if it occurs it shall be brought to an end. Something must also, be done to remove the causes from which war is apt to arise. Some other means than resource to arms must be found for adjusting the natural play of international forces. 1 do not underrate the delicacy of the task. The world is noi static, and changes will from time to time have to be made. The Covenant itself admits this possibility. But such (.Images will have to be made when they are really necessary and when the time is ripe, and not before. They will have to come about by consent and not by dictation, by agreement and not by uniiaterial action, by peaceful means and not by war or threat of war. The members of the League must address themselves to —-s as well as to other aspects of security if the rule of jaw in intcrnntiom>! affairs is to be established and continued." Reverting to the British attitude towards the League and to the sincerity of the ideals that inspired it, Sir Samuel Hoare admitted that while that sincerity sprang from enlightened self-interest it ai'so sprang from enlightened interest in what they believed was best for all. By way of illustration, he chose a question which he said was exercising the minds of many people and many Governments the problems of the world's economic resources and the possibility of making better use of them in the future Problem Not To Be Ignored. "Abundant supplies of raw materials appear to give peculiar advantage to countries possessing them,'' he said. "It is easy to exaggerate the decisive character of such an advantage, for there are countries which, having little or no natural abundance. I have made themselves prosperous and i powerful by industry and trade. Yet ' the fact remains that some countries, either in their native soil or in their colonial territories, so possess what appear to be preponderant advantages that others who are less favoured viow tho situation with anxiety. Esnecu>llv as regards colonial raw materials, it is not unnatural that such a state of affairs should give rise to fear lest exclusive monopolies be set up at the expense of those countries that do not possess colonial Empires. It is clear that in the view of many this is the real problem. And we should be foolish to ignore it. It may be that it is exaggerated. It may be, also, that it is exploited for other purposes. None the less, as the question is causing discontent and anxiety, the wise course is to investigate it to sec what proposals then? are for dealing with it, to see what is the real scope of the trouble, and if the trouble is substantial to try to remove it. The view of his Majesty's Government is that th" problem is economic rather than political and territorial. "It is the fear of monopoly—of the withholding of essential colonial Taw materials—that is causing alarm. It is the desire for a guarantee that the distribution of raw materials will not.be unfairly impeded that is stimulating the demand for further inquiry. So far as his Majesty's Government is concerned, I feel sure that we should be ready to take our share in an investigation of these matters. My impression is that there is no question in the present circumstances of any colony withholding its raw materials from any prospective purchaser. On the contrary, the trouble is that they cannot be sold at rcmuierative prices.

"This side of the question was investigated with concrete results by the Monetary and Economic Conference which met in London iii 1033. Its work was directed primarily towards the raising of wholesale prices to a reasonable level through co-ordination of production and marketing. But one of the stipulations of such action was that it should be fair to all parties, both producers and consumers, that it should not aim at discrimination against, a particular country, and liiat it should as far as possible lie worked with the w-illing co-operation of the consuming interests in importing countries. This precedent may indicate a suitable lino of approach to the inquiry, which should be limited in this case to rawmaterials from colonial areas, including protectorates and mandated territories. 1 suggest that emphasis in the terms of reference should fall upon the free distribution of such raw materials among industries countries which require them, so that all fear of exclusion or monopoly may be removed one; and for all. The Government that I represent will, I know, be prepared to take their share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with a problem that is certainly troubling many people at present and may trouble them even more in th 3 future. Obviously, however, such an inquiry needs calm and dispassionate consideration which is inipossiblc'in an atmosphere of war and threatening war." Dangerously Misleading. Tn concluding, Sir Samuel Hoare said: "It has been not only suggested that British national opinion, as well as the altitude of the United Kingdom Government, was animated by some lower motive than fidelity to the League, but also that even this fidelity to the League could not, be relied upon. It is unjust and dangerously misleading to hold or encourage such illusions. The attitude of his Majesty's Government has been one of unwavering fidelity to the League and all that it stands for, and the case now before us is no exception but a continuance of that rule. The recent response of public opinion shows how completely the nation supports the Government in the full acceptance of the obligations of League membership, which is oft, proclaimed the keynote of its foreign policy. To suggest or insinuate that this policy is for some reason peculiar to the present question at issue would be a complete misunderstanding. It is to the principles of the League, and not, to any particular, manifestation, that the British nation has demonstrated its adherence. Any other view is at once an under-estimate of on* good faith and an imputation upon out sincerity. In conformiity with its precise and explicit obligations, the League of Nations stands, and my country stands with it. for collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. The attitude of the British nation in the last fewweeks has clearly demonstrated th-" 1 fact that this is no variable and unreliable- sentiment but a principle of international conduct to which they and their Government hold with firm, enduring, and universal persistence. That, then, is the British attitude towards the Covenant. I cannot believe that it be changed so long as tlw League remains an effective body and the main bridge between the United Kingdom and the Continent remains intact." What Will France Do ? SURPRISE EXPRESSED AT BRITISH FIRMNESS MUSSOLINI WILL GO AHEAD LONDON, Sept. 1L | The most eagerly-awaited sequel of j Sir Samuel Hoare's speech in London,

as iu Rome, is the reaction of France, which may not be made clear until M. Laval addresses the League Assembly on September 13, instead of on September 12, as was originally intended. The Times' Paris correspondent says that the speech made a deep impression, but that at least on section oi opinion is surprised at the note of resolution, blasting away the hope nursed by Franco that Sir Samuel Hoare would content himself with vague lip-service to the League ideals. Frenchmen realise that the responsibility of avoiding a crisis rests on Signor Mussolini, but. France must now make a decision from which she frankly shrinks. It is understood that Sir Samuel Hoare showed his speech to At. Laval before it was delivered, and the postponement of Al. Laval's address indicates a desire to consult his Alinisters before committing France to a definite course. His colleagues are likely to urge a more cautious tone. Reception in Rome. The Times' Rome correspondent says that the significance of the Italian reception of the speech is uneasiness as to whether M. Laval will be able to resist what is termed pressure from England. Signor Gnyda, in the Giornale d'ltalia, recognises M. Laval's difficulty, and hopes he will maintain his loyalty to Franco-Italian friendship, and declares that Britain puts as a condition for the support of France and the Continent, even for British adherence to Locarno, the conversion of France to a policy of sanctions. This has left France to choose either between common action against Italy or isolation ol England from European affiairs. Well-informed people in Rome do not expect Signor Mussolini will deviate a hair's breadth from his course in consequence of Sir Samuel Hoare's speech. Meanwhile military preparations and departure of troops are being intensified. Addis Ababa correspondents report that the Abyssinian Government believes the Italian offensive will open on September 24. No Italian Reply. Baron Aloisi will not reply to Sir Samuel Hoare's speech. The official spokesman explains that Baron Aloisi was sent to Geneva with the sole task of submitting the Italian memorandum, and that the mission has ended as far a.s Abyssinia is concerned. It remains for the League simply to supply information and for an exchange of views in an absolutely unofficial manner. The Berliner Tageblatt declares that Sir Samuel Hoare has made a rift be- . tween Britain and Italy so deep that , even the greatest optimists cannot en- . tertain illusions about the directness of j the opposition. The Daily Mail's Salzburg correspondent says that Austria is favourably impressed by the Italian case, and declares that Herr Schuschnigg, interviewed by Air. Randolph Churchill, declares that if the League applies sanctions it will result in the gravest-situ-ation, and none could tell where such a disaster would lead. The Viennesse Press supports the Italian rather than the British viewpoint. British Press Views.

The Times says that Sir Samuel Hoare expressed the views not only oi the Government, but of the nation. The passages in the speech which are likely to arouse most attention are the references to raw materials. The fear of monopoly makes uneven distribution a cause of anxiety to many countries, yet the mere traiiaference of colonies will not solve the problem any more than colonisation of tropical territories can possibly accommodate the surplus populations of the European countries concerned. The League, however, offers an opportunity for scientific examination and suitable action. Sir Samuel Hoare soberly appealed to the enlightened selfinterest on which civilisation depends. What war means is plain from the records of 1914, and the world still has freedom to choose. The Daily Chronicle says that ttir Samuel Hoare could not have hinted more plainly to France that if the Covenant was upheld France can look for the fullest assistance from Britain under the Covenant in the event of her security being menaced. On the other hand, if the League collapses Britain will be freed of all international obligations and will have to reconsider as an island her attitude to Europe. The Daily Herald says there are strong fears in the City that a steep rise in the Italian bank rate is imminent in consequence of Italy's financial position becoming worse daily. What About Germany's Colonies ? GENEVA SPECULATION GENEVA, Sept. ]l. Sir Samuel Hoare's reference to free distribution of raw materials from colonial areas, protectorates, and mandated territories has aroused speculation as to whether the ultimate revision of certain mandates involving France will result in the raising of the question whether Germany should not be included as well as Italy The Daily Telegraph's Geneva correspondent interprets Sir Samuel Hoare to mean that Britain contemplates an inquiry under the auspices of the League to decide whether the mere fact of British ownership of certain territories is factually any obstacle to free distribution of their products It is anticipated that Ger-

many sooner or later will make formal representations on the subject of colonies. FINEST EFFORT HEARD AT GENEVA. GENEVA, Sept. .11. A French commentator said Sir Samuel Hoare's speech \va one of the finest efforts he had heard at Geneva. "It takes us back," he said, " to Lord Curzon \s day. Britain] has resumed the undisputed leader-1 ship in foreign affairs." The Italians remained in the chamber while Mr. Hawariat, the Ethiopian member, briefly announced that Abyssinia is -willing to discuss any proposal not inspired by personal interest. Her integrity was threatened, despite every proposal she freely made. He suggested that the League send a commission of inquiry to Abysinia. The Emperor would consider any reasonable suggestion for conciliation.