IN THE COMMONS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 June 1938, Page 6

IN THE COMMONS

DEBATE ON AIR. WARFARE. BOMBING IN SPAIN. (Per British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, June 21. Speaking in the foreign affairs debate in the House of Commons, immediately after Mr Phillip Noel Baker (Labour), who opened for the Opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr Neville’ Chamberlain) said he thought that there would be general agreement with the remarks which had fallen from Mr Baker upon the horrors of modern war and about the practice of bombing from the air.

“Indeed.” said Air Chamberlain, “if it were not that China is so far away and that the scenes taking place are so remote from our everyday consciousness, I think 'that sentiments of pity, horror, and indignation which would be aroused by a full perception of these events might drive this people to courses which, perhaps, they have never yet contemplated.” Mr Chamberlain also accepted Mr Baker’s remark that it was wrong to lay it down that new weapons made new laws, but he said he must qualify that with the proviso that new weapons might introduce new conditions, which required, if not recasting, at any rale en elaboration of the existing laws. The fact was that at present there was not a code of international law respecting aerial'warfare which was generally accepted. There were certain rules of international law established for sea and land warfare, and those rules or principles underlying them were applicable to aerial warfare, but they did not entirely meet the cases which had to be met to-day. CAREFUL SURVEY OF POSITION. The Prime Minister reminded the House that the Government was engaged upon a careful survey of the whole position with a view to formulating a practical'scheme which could be put before other countries for acceptance or

modification, with a view to reaching some international understanding on the rules of aerial warfare. There, at any rate, were three rules or three principles of international law which he thought they might say were applicable to aerial warfare ns fully as they were on land or sea.. They were

(1) It is against international law to bomb civilians, as such, and to make deliberate attacks on civilian populations. That undoubtedly was a violation r.f international law.

(2) Targets must be legitimate military objectives, and be capable of identification.

(3) Reasonable care must be taken in attacking those objectives. Those three general rules they could all accept, and the Government did accept. them, but obviously when they came to practise them, there wore con*§M,era TfleV? ‘ ,v |

All’ Chamberlain declared emphatically that he could not, too strongly condemn the idea that it should be part of a deliberate poliex- to try to win the war by demoralising a civilian population through the process of bombing from the air. That xvas absolutely contrary (to international laxv. and be gax-e it as bis opinion that it xvas. in addition, a mistaken policy. He did not believe that deliberate attacks on civilian populations would ever xvin a war for those who made it. INCIDENTS IN CHINA AND SPAIN. After referring to the difficulties which arose in the practical application of the general rules xvliicb he had enunciated, and having repeated the wish of the Government to produce practical proposals before approaching other Governments on the question, Mr Chamberlain observed that he was hound to say that in the opinion of Britain far too 1 many incidents bad occurred, both in China and Spain, where those general rules had been plainly disregarded.

Air Chamberlain then turned to the. question of attacks on British ships in ports in Loyalist Spain. He repeated that after a careful and exhaustive examination of all possible methods of giving aid to British shims attacked in territorial waters the Government, had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to do 1 so short, of intervention in the xvar and cutting across the whole policy of non-intervention which it, had been following since the outbreak of civil xvar in Spain.

He denied the suggestion that since Mr R. A. Eden resigned the Foreign, Secretaryship the Government had changed the. policy announced by the former Foreign Secretary regarding Ihe protection of the. British merchant marine, The Government skill maintained its policy regarding attacks on British ships on the high seas, hut it, eonld not undertake in every single ease that, there should he a British warship xvithin reach. TRAFFIC IN ARMS DENIED. Mr Chamberlain said that, there was no foundation for the suggestion that British ships had been carrying arms nr munitions. They bad, ol course, been carrying food, roal, oil, and other stores of value in the xvar, and that xvas the reason wliv they had been attacked, but the Government did not admit the eight of General Franco or anyone else to attack these ships. What, they did say was that they could not, see anv practical means of preventing it, xvhich would not he coninlotely at variance with their responsibility of maintaining the non-interven-tion policy. Tie-bad examined a number of suggestions advanced by Mr Baker' for bringing pressure upon General

Franco, and in each case he had found that the difficulties were greater than the Opposition supposed.

He had come reluctantly to the conclusion (that while the Spanish war continued they must expect a succession of these incidents. The sole satisfactory solution cf the question would be the termination of the war itself. On, that all he could say was that the Government would, from time to time, take soundings with a view to seeing whether there were any favourable prospects of successful mediation, and when that time bailie they would be glad, either alone or in conjunction with others, to offer their services to bring the lamentable conflict, to an end.

In opening the debate for the Opposition Mr Baker accused the Government of failure to take action to nro-. feet British shipping (such as its predecessors had taken at the time ot the Metropolitan Vickers case in Bussia) because of its sympathy with Franco. He replied to suggestions sometimes I made by hack bench supporters of th.e Government that the ships subject to attack had no right to the protection of the British flag and were trading with ports in Government Spain, in spite of the known risks, only for the purpose c.f reaping enormous profits. Ills case was that the Government seemed incapable of making a stand against the demands of the dictatorship States, and lie stated that if only it would show firmness, the situation, instead of steadily deteriorating, would be found to Improve. “AN INVITATION TO FRANCO.” Sir Archibald Sinclair, for the Liberals, said lie thought Mr Chamberlain’s Speech was an invitation to General Franco to maintain and intensify the air blockade of ports in Government Spain by bombing peaceful shipping. The only reason why Britain had sunk so low as meekly to suffer such insults, was because Mr Chamberlain’s fortunes were politically bound up with the Bri-tish-Ttalian agreement. He asked for I information regarding rumours in the ] newspapers that Signor Mussolini had asked Britain to bring the agreement into operation in advance of the fulfilment of the condition of a general I settlement in Spain. He also desired to know what had been the Government’s reply.

I Sir Archibald Sinclair went on to refer to a series of articles which bad appeared in a number of United States and Canadian newspapers four or five weeks ago, purporting to give the official British views on a number of re- : cent ouostions of foreign policy. Ho ’ argued that in view of the presump-

tion which had been created that the views expressed in those articles had been inspired, it was important that their contents should be denied by .Mr Chamberlain, and he expressed regret at. the latter’s refusal either to confirm or deny them. Air Chamberlain intervened to say: “1 must protest against any assumption that because ! I did%b't®dffif'Y'* i ‘the intfif* view therefore I am admitting it/ I made it perfectly clear that if I were once to begin admitting or denying any gossip which max- go round as authentic or gs an alleged interview, whenever T refuse to give that assurance one xvay or the other, that xvoidd be taken as evidence against me. That is the reason xvbx- it is impossible for me to sav that T xvPl either admit or deny the truth of this story.”

OPPOSITION SPEAKERS ATTACKED. Several /Government ; supporters speaking subsequently, expressed resentment at Sir Archibald Sinclair’s speech and Sir A. R. South by (Conservative, Epsom) declared that the policy xvliicb Air Chamberlain xvas pursuing had won approval from the xvorld public. Mr Arthur Henderson (Labour, Eihgsxvinford) referred to the persecution of. Jexvs in parts of Europe'as a result of the policy of racial discrimination, and spoke of the excesses xvliicb, he said, bad shocked the xvholo of civilisation. Ho asked the Government- to take an active and helpful part, in the forthcoming conference at Evian. Air Lloyd George attacked the Gox rernment’s attitude to the bombing of British ships. He said British shipping xvas the greatest, in the world, and it had alwavs been protected against attack until now. He urguotr that the incapacity of the Government, to find moans of continuing that protection had originated in the Prime Minister’s rejection of Mr Eden’s advice that the situation in Spain should be cleared before opening the Brit islt-T tali an conversations. Air Chamberlain's aim ol peace was a noble one and perseverance in it. was commendable, but, if, in pursuit of that wide aim, he bad taken the xvronpj course, it xvas sheer obstinacy not to admit it. A FARCE.” Sir Henry Page Croft (Conservative, Bournemouth) thought the Prime ATinister’s policy introduced a glimmering hope of preserving world peace, and considered that Mr Lloyd George's and other Opposition speeches did a disservice to the cause of peace. Air David Grenfell (Labour, Power), xxtc.iind up the debate lor the Labour Party, and described non-intervention as a farce. The-Under-, Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr R. A. Butler), replying for the Government, said he was glad |o he able to toll the House of the very distinct progress xvhicli lmd been made in that day’s meeting of the Non-hiterven- 1 lion Committee. The agreement .xvhicli had been reached on the mail) provision of the British plan meant that they had got a. long way nearer putting tlm plan into practice. Til intnre it xvou'd be possible to submit the plan to the