Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, SEPT. 13, 1935. A MASTERLY SPEECH.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 245, 13 September 1935, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, SEPT. 13, 1935. A MASTERLY SPEECH.

At the conclusion of the discussions in Paris, last month, which failed to discover a satisfactory solution of the Italian-Abyssinian dispute, the chief British delegate, Mr Anthony Eden, voiced the opinion that “they must go on.” To an important meeting of Cabinet he gave full details of the conference, and a course of action was unanimously agreed upon. That has now been placed before the Assembly of the League of Nations by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Sir Samuel Iloare) who, in the course of a brilliant speech, with words calmly and deliberately spoken, affirmed Britain’s adherence to the Covenant of the League as the keynote of her foreign policy. “The League stands—and my country with it —for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression,” he said. “It is a principle of international conduct to which the British Government will hold with firm, enduring, and universal persistence.” His analysis of the League Covenant, of its supreme ideals, of the difficulties with which it is beset, and of the obligations into which the member States have entered, as well as the important fact that conditions giving rise to grave complications can be modified through the machinery of the League, was a masterpiece of logic and sound commonsense that left a marked impression upon the delegates. In the light of past history no other course, it might very well be presumed, could have been taken by Britain, whose leadership in foreign affairs lias, if not always, generally been pre-eminent. _lt is significant that in the opinion of a French commentator Britain has resumed her undisputed leadership in this direction. That the nations assembled at Geneva -were eagerly awaiting Britain's pronouncement is to be readily understood, and it has been given with a directness of purpose that leaves no room to doubt her stand in the grave crisis confronting the world. But, and the Foreign Minister laid deep emphasis upon his -words, if the burden of ,'the Covenant is to be borne, it must be by the collective action of the members of the League—if risks for peace are to be run they must be run by all—and within the capacity she has Britain will fulfill the obligations the Covenant has laid upon her. She cannot, however, act alone. Now that Britain has spoken clearly the next move in the Geneva drama lies with France. She faces the duty—and it is not a pleasant one for her in view of her late rapprochement wdth Italy—of deciding whether the League ideals which she has never ceased to stress against Germany should prevail, or whether mere lip service only shall be given. To Ttaly the speech was a significant reminder that unilateral action is a negation of the ideal of collective security and though it will not, it is asserted, turn Signor Mussolini from his path of aggression, it cannot fail to convince her that she stands alone in the matter. In one important respect Sir Samuel Hoare inferentially dwelt upon Italy’s difficulties—in the absence of raw materials at home and in colonial possessions, while other countries “possessed what appear to be preponderant advantages.” It was not unnatural, he pointed out, that such a state of affairs should give rise to a fear lest exclusive monopolies be set up at the expense of countries not possessing colonial empires. He admitted the problem was a real one and it would

be foolish to ignore it, but it was “economic rather than political and territorial,” and after analysing it carefully and with a reasoned approach to its difficulties, announced Britain’s readiness to take a share in any collective attempt to deaf fairly and effectively with a “problem that is certainly troubling many people at present and may trouble them more in the future.” The implications of this part of the speech are undoubtedly many, and affect countries —Germany included —without colonial resources and holders of mandates, but the reference is of very great importance as a means of finding a solution to satisfy Italian aspirations in Abyssinia.