COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 244, 12 September 1935, Page 8

COLLECTIVE SECURITY

3.15 P.M. EDITION

“MOST EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARD.”

Sill S. HOARE’S WEIGHTY WORDS.

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received September 12, 11.59 a.m. RUGBY, Sent, 11.

Sir Samuel Iloare (British Foreign Secretary) speaking at the League of Nations,, said the delegates were there as members ol a collective organisation, each pledged by certain obligations, and each anxious to safeguard the future of the world by collective action in the cause of peace and progress in spite of any national faults and failings. He believed that British public opinion had usually shown a sound instinct on big issues and usually, in moments of crisis, had expressed itself with firmness, justice, and commonsense. British public opinion had been firmly behind the League when it had been founded. The British people supported the League for no selfish motive—they, had seen the old system of alliances being unable to pVevent a world war. As practical men and women tliey wished to find a more effective instrument for peace. They had been deeply and genuinely moved by a great ideal. IDEAL CLUNG TO. In spite of the experiences of the past British people had clung to their ideal «nd they believed that collective security founded on international agreement was the most effective safeguard for peace and they would he gravely disturbed if the new instrument that had been forged were blunted or destroyed. It was necessary, however, for them not only to have that ideal but to consider what were the best measures for achieving it. But in determining the conditions in which the Council were working they must first clear their minds as to what the League was and what it was not. It was not a super-State, nor evcfli a separate entity, existing of itself, independent of, or transcending States which make up its memoership. If it succeeded it did so because its members had, in combination with each other, the will and power to apply the principles of the Covenant. If it failed it did so because its members lacked either the will or the power to fulfil tlieir obligations.

Proceeding, Sir Samuel Hoare discussed the collective security organisation of peace and prevention of war by collective means. It meant much more than what were commonly called sanctions; it meant the whole Covenant. It assumed a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations. Its foundation was a series of fundamental obligations. accepted by members, to submit every dispute likely to lead to war to peaceful methods of settlement according to the procedure provided by the Covenant. THE OBLIGATIONS. The two principal conditions in which the system of collective security were designed to operate were: 1. —That the members should have reduced their armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety ai d the enforcement by common action of international obligations. 2. That the possibility was open through the machinery of the League for the modification bv consent and by peaceful means of international conditions whoso continuance might be a danger to peace. To complete the svstem there normally was the obligation to take collective action to bring war to an end in the event of any resort to war in disregard to the Covenant obligations. Underlying these obligations was the expectation that this system would he subscribed to b.y the 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, and Sir Samuel Hoare proceeded to refer to some unfavourable circumstances at the present time, and the much more grievous burden which in consequence lay upon tire faithful members to preserve what .had been won in the struggle for the organisation of peace. Still the • obligations of the Covenant remained and their burden had been increased many fold, but one thing was certain : if the burden was to he home it must he borne collectively. If the risks for peace must he run they must be run by all.

“On behalf of His Majesty’s Government I can say that they will ho second to none in tlieir intention to fulfil within the measure of tlieir capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon them. It is m accordance with what we believe to be the underlying principles of the League that our people have steadily promoted and still promote the growth of self-government in thenown territories. It was for example only a few weeks ago that I was responsible lor helping to pass through the Imperial Parliament a great and complicated measure for extending self-government to India. ECONOMIC RESOURCES.

Reverting to the British attitude towards the J-ioague and to the sincerity of the ideals that inspired it, Sir Samuel Hoaro admitted that while that sincerity springs from enlightened selfinterest it also springs from enlightened interest, in what they believed the best for all. By way of illustration he chose tlie question winch he said was exercising the minds of many people and many governments —the problem of the world's economic resources and the possibility of making a better use of them in the future. “Abundant supplies of raw materials appear to give the peculiar advantage to countries possessing them. Jt is easy to exaggerate the decisive character of such advantages, lor there are countries which, having little or no natural abundance, have made themselves prosperous and powerful by industry and trade. \et 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 less favoured view the situation with anxiety, especially as regards colonial raw materials. It is not unnatural that such a state of affairs should give rise to a 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 a real problem and we should be foolish to ignore it. Tt may he that it is exaggerated; it may be also that it is exploited for other purposes. None the less as a question causing discontent and anxiety, the wise course is to investigate it to see what the proposals are ior dealing with it; to see what is the real scope of the trouble, and if the trouble is substantial to try and remove it. The view of His Majesty’s Government is that the problem is economic rather than political and territorial. It is the fear of monopoly, of the withholding of essen-

tial colonial raw materials, that is causing alarm. Aly impression is that there is no question in the present circumstances ot any colony withholding its raw materials from any prospective purchaser; on the contrary rhe trouble is that they cannot be sold at remunerative prices.

“This side of the question was investigated with concrete results by a Commission of the Monetary and Economic Conference which met in London in H/33. Its work was directed primarily towards raising the wholesale lirices to a reasonable level through the co-ordination ot production and marketing, but one stipulation of such action was that it be fair to all parties —both producers and consumers — that it should not aim at discrimination against a particular country, and that it should as far as possible be worked with the willing co-operation of the consuming interests in importing countries. UNWAVERING FIDELITY TO LEAGUE.

“This precedent may indicate a suitable line of approach to the enquiry which should be limited in this case to raw materials from colonial areas, including Protectorates and Mandated Territories. I suggest that emphasis in the terms ol reference should fall upon the free distribution of such raw materials among industrial countries which require them so that all fear of exclusion or a monopoly may be removed once and for all. The Government I represent will, I know, be prepared to take their share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with the problem that is certainly troubling many people at present and may trouble .them even more in the future.”

“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. Any other view is at once an under-esti-mate of our good faith and an imputation upon our sincerity. I cannot believe that that attitude should be changed so long as the League remains tin effective body and the main bridge between the United Kingdom and the Continent remains intact.”

The speech of Sir Samuel made a deep impression on the delegates, according to messages from Geneva. The firm and clear statement of the attitude of the British Government towards the Covenant was followed with profound attention. GENEVA, Sept. 11. Sir Samuel Hoare’s reference to the free distribution of raw materials from colonial areas. Protectorates and mandated territories has aroused speculation whether the ultimate revision of certain mandates involving France will result in bringing up the question whether Gernianv should not be included as well as Italy.

The Daily Telegraph’s Geneva correspondent interprets Sir Samuel Hoare to mean that Britain contemplates uidustrv under League auspices, deciding whether the mere fact of the British ownership of certain territories is actually any obstacle to the free distribution' of tlieir products. It is anticipated that Germany, sooner or later, will make formal representations on the subject of colonies.

POSITION OP FRANCE,

SIR SAMUEL HOARE’S SPEECH. FRENCH AND ITALIAN VIEWS. Received September 12, 1.10 p.m. LONDON, Sept. IL. One of the most eagerly awaited sequels to Sir Samuel Hoare’s speech in London, as in Rome, is the •reaction of France, which may not be made clear until M. Laval addresses the League on Friday instead of an Thursday, as originally intended. The ” Times Paris correspondent says the speech made a deep impression but at least one section of opinion is surprised to note the resolution blasting away the hope, nursed by France, that Sir Samuel would be content with vague lip service to the League ideals. The Frenchmen realise that the responsibility of avoiding a crisis rests with Signor Mussolini, but France must now make a decision from which she frankly shrinks. It is understood that Sir Samuel lloare showed his speech to M. Laval before its delivery. The postponement of M. Laval’s address indicates his desire to consult his Ministers before committing France to a definite course. His colleagues arc likely to urge a more cautious tone.

The Times Home correspondent states that the significance of the Italian reception of the speech is uneasiness as to whether M. Laval will bo able to resist what is termed pressure from England. Signor Gavda, in the Giornale D’ltalia, recognises M. Laval’s difficulty in his hopes to maintain Ids loyalty to the Eranco-Italian friendship'. He declares that Britain put as a condition for the support of France on the Continent, even for British adherence to Locarno, the conversion of the French policy on sanc-