FOREIGN COMMENTS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 253, 23 September 1935, Page 7

FOREIGN COMMENTS.

ON BRITISH POSITION. GENERALLY EXAGGERATED. (•British Official Wireless.) Received September 23, 12.2 p.m. RUGBY, Sept. 22. The newspapers contain reports from correspondents in Italy with reference to bitter attacks in many Italian newspapers on England and fierce denunciation of the alleged concentration of British ships in the Mediterranean. The general comment is, apart from exaggeration, a misinterpretation of the tacts of the recent naval movements. The Itulian Press campaign, which included an accusation of aggressive intentions on the part of the British Government, shows a complete misunderstanding of the British attitude,” for the issue of the present crisis,” says the News-Chronicle in a leading article, “is not between'Britain and Italy, a nation with whom the Government of this country has ho conceivable quarrel, but between Italy and the League. The threat of war which has arisen has been referred to the League, is under the League’s adjudication, and cannot be taken away from the League.” The sole British concern, as this and other papers emphasise, is support of the Covenant and the discharge of obligations undertaken as a member of the League. The suggestion of unilateral action by Britain, therefore, is absurd. So far as the recent movements of the British naval units are concerned, it is pointed out that these are, lor the most part, merely anticipations of the rearrangements foreshadowed at various times, including' the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Naval Estimates, and that they can only be regarded as reasonable precautions in view of the threatening tone adopted for some time in the Italian Press towards the Powers which showed an intention of standing by their League obligations. The association of these measures to safeguard the position with the possibility of sanctions, it is argued, is quite unjustified. The question of sanctions, as Sir John Simon said in a speech at Clecklieaton, has not arisen. “If such a question does arise, it will be for rhe League of Nations as a whole to deal with.” After the conversations at Geneva yesterday between Mr It. A. Eden and M. Laval, in which the close agreement which exists between Paris and London in regard to the attitude required by their common obligations under the Covenant was further extended, the French Minister in Rome (Comte De Ohambrun) called on Signor Mussolini on the instructions of M. Laval, and is believed to have urged him strongly to accept the basis of discussion drawn up by Senor De Madriaga, M. Laval, Mr Eden, and their Turkish and Polish colleagues. The Sunday newspapers report yesterday’s decision of the Italian Council of Ministers regarding the proposals of the League Council’s Committee of Five, but the disposition is to interpret tho decision as not barring the way to further negotiation for a peaceful settlement. A good deal of attention is devoted to the tendency in the Italian and other foreign Press to misrepresent the attitude of the British Government towards the dispute between Ethiopia and Italy. The diplomatic correspondent of the Observer says: “Tile Spanish Press, ror instance, has in the past few days been featuring the issue as an ItaloBritish issue.”

The writer continues: “It is important that the British Government’s policy should not be misunderstood. It is the League of Nations’ policy in which the cardinal principle is that of collective responsibility. The British Government is not competent, and lias no desire, or intention, to take any action whatsoever except as a member of the League. British action, therefore, is entirely dependent upon a League decision, equally committing France and Russia and all tho smaller Powers to like action.”

The same point is made by an article in the Sunday Times on the theory of sanctions. Signor Mussolini evidently speaks and acts as though the issue at Geneva is between England and Italy. Under the Covenant there not only is, but can be, no dispute between Italy and this country, with this country as an intervening party. We would not act alone under the Covenant and could not legally do so, even if we should, for the offence which Signor Mussolini threatens is not against any intervention but agaifiTl* "the League. Neither we, nor any o"~er member of the League, has any legal power to proceed to sanctions except in execution of the League's unanimous will, and common prudence dictates that that will must l>e unanimous, not only in word but in deed, and necessary in common sacriUrider the Anglo-Italian trade and payments agreement, £2,060,834 was jutstanding and awaiting transfer ,nto sterling for payment to British creditors on September 18.