ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 280, 24 October 1935, Page 2

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

NEW ZEALAND’S PART

HOUSE PASSES BILL.

HONOURING A PLEDGE

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 23,

The League of Nations Sanctions (Enforcement in New Zealand) Bill, which was introduced and passed in the House of Representatives to-day, confers on the Governor-Ge--?ral in Council power to make regulations to enable the Dominion, as an original member of the League, to fulfil the obligations undertaken by it in terms of Article 16 of the Coven-

ant. • The Bill provides that the Act shall come into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by a proclamation approved in the Executive Council and published in the Gazette. The Governor-General may, in a like manner, suspend or revive its operation as exigencies of international affairs may render desirable or expedient, and regulations may be made under the Act provided that none shall be construed to authorise regulations requiring any person to undergo compulsory train-, ing to serve in New Zealand or overseas. or prohibiting fair and reasonable publication of any expression of opinion as to the expediency of any regulation. Liability for a breach of the regulations under the Bill provides for a penalty of 12 months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £IOO. All regulations made under authority of the Bill must be laid before Parliament within 28 days, if Parliament is i'n session, and, if not, within 28 days of the beginning of the next session, and regulations laid before Parliament will expire after two months unless they are expressly validated or confirmed by the Act.

The Bill was introduced by Gov-ernor-General’s message and urgency was accorded its passing. Moving the second reading of the Bill, the Prime Minister (Rt. lion. G. W. Forbes) said that it was a very simple measure designed to confer power upon the Government to provide, by Order-in-Council, for the application of sanctions under the Covenant of the League of Nations. “The Bill, as drafted, has no specific reference to the present dispute between Italy and Abyssinia,” lie said. “It is in general form and is intended to be capable of application by Order-in-Council in any circumstances which may necessitate action provided for bv Section 16 of the Covenant. New Zealand is a member of the League and, consequently, is bound by the Covenant. The Council of the League has unanimously (with the exception of Italy) decided that Italy lias resorted to war in violation of its commitments under the Covenant, and fifty-three nations, members of the League, have approved of this resolution and have confirmed a recommendation of the Council that the breach of the Covenant should be brought to an end. New Zealand, the most distant of League members, is in direct touch by wireless with Geneva and the Government are thus in a position to follow developments in Geneva day by day.” NO DIVISION OF OPINION.

The Prime Minister proceeded to outline the proposals made by the League Committee regarding sanctions which have appeared in the cables. “I should say that in considering steps to be taken in this connection the Government have had the benefit of the collaboration and assistance of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it is safe for me to say that in this matter there is no question of party politics, and no difference of opinion between the various parties in the House,” Mr Forbes continued. “Indeed, the position is so clear that difference of opinion could scarcely arise. • The Treaty of Versailles (which contains the Covenant of the League, and, in particular, that section which is recited in the Bill before the House), was voluntarily accepted by every member of the Lea - gue. By our signature and by ratification of the Treaty we voluntarily and definitely undertook distinct and definite obligations. In particular, we undertook that when any member of the League had resorted to war in disregard of its commitments under the Covenant, certain action would follow. That position has now arisen and the only question before us at the moment is a simple one —whether we intend to honour our bond and carry out the obligations which we voluntarily undertook to carry out.

“In a British community there can be only one answer to that question. Our decision must necessarily he arrived at without regard to feelings of sympathy on the one hand, or of condemnation on the other. It is our bounden duty to co-operate with the League, which recognises the sanctity of international obligation with His Majesty’s Government and with other Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations. ITALY AND BRITAIN.

“The great and powerful nation against whom sanctions are about to be applied is an old and traditional fritnid of the British Empire. Italy was one of our allies during the Great "War and on many occasions before and since Italy has collaborated with Britain and with the British Commonwealth to the advantage of the world. Our action, and the action of the League, is not inspired by any feeling of hostility to Italy, to the Italian Government or to the Italian people. It is animated solely by our intention to honour our pledged word and to play our small part ill a common attempt to establish peace and order in international relations. It cannot be suggested, of course, that the action of New Zealand in this connection is likely to have any material bearing upon the efficacy, or otherwise, of the steps to be taken by the League. But we should be failing in our duty to the League and betraying a sense of honour that is traditional in our people, should we fail at this juncture to undertake our share of collective responsibility to maintain a solemn Covenant that we voluntarily accepted in common with the vast majority of the nations of the world. British policy and New Zealand policy have no other aim in this matter than a preservation of peace and prevention of war. We hope and believe that the steps now being taken may be successful. It this should happily prove to be the case, then the collective peace system which has been established at Geneva and on which the hopes of the world have centred, may yet prove to be an effective bander against the anachionism of war. If it fails in such a case as this it will be plain that no material help can be rendered in this way by the Geneva system, and members or the House and people of the country need be in little doubt then as to nhat the result is likely to be. The world will be thrown back into a welter of doubt and uncertainty and the threatening gesture that existed before 1914. The Great War will have been fought in vain and the millions who perished for the ideal of peace will have died in vain. Every nation, including our

own, must turn to rearmament as the only means of protecting itself against organised aggression. The financial burden will be crushing and the ultimate end, it cannot be doubted, will be war in a more horrible shape than any war that has yet been seen. Such will become a probability and not a remote possibility, and in the place of an earnest effort to apply reason in regard to law and oi;der in international relations, nations will again be forced back on the old rule that ‘he shall take who has the power, and he shall keep who can.’ There will be no check to the bully and his actions. Along that way lies international intrigue, international hatred, international chaos, death of countless millions and the probable destruction of our civilisation. By the path the League has taken there is at least a prospect, if it is no more, that our children may be able to lend lives free from the horrors of war. ECONOMIC ONLY.

“Two points only I wish to mention. Firstly, that the sanctions which the Co-ordination Committee recommend to members of the League are economic sanctions only, and I trust that these steps will not lead to any false suggestions that, in the end, they will result in war. That seems to me, with the ample and confidential information at my disposal, to be highly improbable, and I hope the members and the country will carefully note this statement. Finally, anticipating a probable and natural objection to according to any Government the power to enforce such drastic measures by way of Order-in-Council, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me when I say. that there is no other effective way of making the necessary provision. The House will be rising very shortly, and it will be quite impossible to attempt to meet what may be altering requiremnts by means of legislation. It will only be by’ Orders-i n -Cou nci 1 that the necessary flexibility may bo obtained, and in order to provide the greatest possible safeguard any Orders-in-Council made under this provision are to "be laid before Parliament and are to lapse unless confirmed by Parliament. I ask members, and indeed the country generally, to recognise that this way may well prove to be a turning point in history. The future of civilisation is at stake, and it is well worth making sacrifices for its security.” LABOUR SUPPORT. Mr Savage said Labour’s passion for peace made it necessary for them to support collective action for world peace and it seemed to him when action was taken by the nations they would be nearer the principles of peace than they had ever been, but if it had been begun earlier the task would have been easier. However, that did not lessen New Zealand’s responsibility. Mr Forbes had said economic sanctions were intended, and although the Bill provided for action by Order-in-Council a situation of that description could be met in no other way. Mr Forbes had also said they might have reached a turning point in history. “Let us hope and pray this is a turning point and that our prayers and advocacy of peace will at least be met by universal peace.” There might be some clause not just acceptable at first sight, but the main clause seemed to him to remove the main objection to a Bill of that description. That clause provided for tho right of expression of opinion as to expediency of the regulations and dealing with compulsory training. Some people had visions of the old war regulations. He . suggested to the Prime Minister that instead of penalties being imposed by summary conviction he should allow trial by jury. He was glad reasonable criticism of the regulations was not going to be suppressed. It seemed to him to be on the lines most members would wish. He thought members would agree with the main clauses. The present Parliament would go out of existence shortly, and provision that members could be called on for advice left little room for quibbling at the present juncture. He thought that if the nations took away from the aggressor the supply of arms and other articles which made for war they would be closer to the principles of universal peace than they had ever been. The Opposition would not object to the Bill except as regards trial by jury.HISTORIC IMPORTANCE.

Mr W. Downie Stewart thought the Bill would be generally acceptable to the House and it was an occasion of historic importance to New Zealand. Collective action by the nations of the world must have a deterrent effect _ in future. It seemed to be recognised throughout the world that if the League were not successful on this occasion the world would go back to the old system of treaties, etc. Mr W. A. Veitch wholeheartedly supported the measure, the foundation principle of which was sanctity of contract, which must be closely guarded by all members of the League. A matter for satisfaction in a great crisis was that Britain again led the world. They had a new economic situation which had never been tried out, but which on the face of it looked like being a success, and the League had an opportunity of taking decisive action in the interests of tho peace of the world.

Mr W. J. Poison thought the attitude of Britain had the admiration and excited the envy of all nations of the world. OUTSIDE THE LEAGUE.

Mr H. M. Rushworth said the step had been taken as a member of the League, but what was to happen in regard to those countries which were not members of the League, such as the United States, Germany and Japan? Was there any proposal to introduce economic sanctions against those nations which were not members of the League, but which might maintain economic communications with the nation which was at war? Mr Forbes, in reply, said there was nothing in the legislation to empower the Government to bring in compulsory training or send a force overseas. A compulsory matter of that sort required separate legislation, and it was not the intention of the Government to apply Orders-in-Council in that way. Regarding trial by jury, the person charged had the right of appeal. It was not intended by the Council at the present stage to apply sanctions to the nations mentioned by Mr Rushworth. The second reading was agreed to and the Bill was put through Committee without amendment, read the third time and passed.