THE LEAGUE VOTE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 120, 22 April 1936, Page 10

THE LEAGUE VOTE

BOTH POWERS CENSURED. MR EDEN’S STRONG APPEAL. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received April 21, 1.10 p.m. GENEVA, April 20. Baron Aloisi (Italy) objected to the last paragraph in the original of the League’s finding and secured a modification so that tho resolution indirectly condemns the Abyssinian atrocities as well as Italy’s use of poison gas. The early part of the resolution notes the report of the Committee of Thirteen and approves and renews the Committee’s appeal to the parties for the prompt cessation of hostilities and the restoration of peace, and notes that, on April 5, Ethiopia in replying to this appeal accepted the opening of negotiations subject to the observance of the Covenant and that on April 8 Italy agreed to negotiation in principle. The resolution regrets that the cessation of hostilities is not realisable and that the war continues under conditions declared to be contrary to the Covenant and involving the execution of obligations provided by the Covenant.

Mr S. M. Bruce, at the brief public session, put the resolution. Baron Aloisi announced that he would vote against it. Mr AVolde Mariam (Abyssinia) complained that the resolution did not protest against the war of extermination which Italy was waging against Ethiopia. The resolution was carried unanimously, tho votes of Italy and Abyssinia not counting. A British Official Wireless message says that Mr R. A. Eden, passing on to consider the future of the League in relation to the<i outcome of the action in tlie present dispute, said there was no nation represented there that might not at some time need the protection of the Covenant. How much, he asked, might tlie efficacy of that protection depend on the final outcome of tho present crisis. “The League is to-day in difficulties, and it- is in time of difficulty that we most need our friends. If the ideals on which the Covenant is based have not yet established themselves as a universally observed rule of international conduct it is my profound conviction that they cannot be killed. They may not, as yet, at all times direct the actions of Governments, but they undoubtedly live in the hearts of men.”

He emphasised the responsibility “which lies upon each one of us to ensure that we contribute to our utmost, and within the limits prescribed by tho Covenant, to the collective support of the authority of the League. Only thus can we hope ultimately t-o establish in the world a rule of order iu which aggression does not pay.”

PRAISE AND BLAME

COMMENT ON PROCEDURE,

FRANCE’S ACTION

Received April 21, 1.25 p.m. LONDON, April 21

The News-Chronicle’s Geneva correspondent says Mr Eden’s speech contained so little promise of deeds that it caused considerable disappointment. However, his reaffirmation that, whatever the military circumstances, the League must maintain the pressure against the aggressor is important but unhelpful, as it would he as hopeless to expect France to take the lead against Italy as to expect Britain to lead against Germany’s breach oi Locarno. Moreover, the Ministers of the smaller European countries are summoned weekly to the Rlazzo Ghigi, where they are menaced by all sorts of punishments if 'they continue to enforce sanctions against Italy. The British did not press for. a meeting of the Committee of Eighteen to impose further because they expected France to strikingly declare Anglo-French solidarity, but they were “sold a pup,” as M. Raul Boncour, after a telephone call from M. Flandin, whose initiative towards conciliation led to the present disastrous uncertainty, made no such declaration, but on the contrary indulged in a barely veiled reproach of Britain’s lack of drastic action against Germany. M. Boncour’s speech was chiefly generalities and ended abruptly when his hearers believed it was just begui111’jne Times, in a leader, emphasises the vigour and lucidity of Mr Eden’s exposition of British foreign policy, which deeply impressed the Council after Baron Aloisi’s absurd suggestion that Abyssinia, as the aggressor, had thwarted peace efforts. Even M. Boncour joined' Mr Eden’s protest against the violation of the 1925 protocol. No speaker was prepared to return to international anarchy by abandoning the principle of mutual help against lawless aggression. “This principle has the wholehearted support, not only of the majority of Britons, l>ut tlig Biitisli Dominions —Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa-demon-strated this in connection with Sir Samuel Hoare’s declaration in September that the Empire can always remain united in upholding the rule of law against force in international affairs. This, in the long run, is tlie wisest and most courageous course, the Times adds.