No Abandonment of League as Basis

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 258, 30 October 1937, Page 2

No Abandonment of League as Basis

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright LONDON, Oct. 28. Speaking in the debate on ,the Adciress-in-Reply, Lord Cranbourne, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, referred to charges by Opposition members that the omission of direct allusion to the League of Nations in the King's Speech meant that the Government had abandoned the League. That was a conclusion, ho said, as unwarranted as if they had argued that the absence of mention in the Speech of maintenance of the Constitution heralded a policy of red revolution. He could assure the House that the League remained the basis of British foreign policy. In the Far East, he said, the League was faced with a problem of a very special character. The House knew that throughout the British Government had tried to keep as closely in touch as possible with Washington. When the Committee of Twenty-three met it recognised two main tasks. The first was that it had to act as the [ mouthpiece of world public opinion. As a result of a completely objective impartial examination, the Committee came to the unanimous decision that Japan had not been justified in taking the action she had, and had violated the Nine-Power Treaty and the Pact of Paris. The League had not merely to decide what action would be in accordance with the Covenant, but what action was most likely to be effective. It was quite clear that the League, acting alone, would not bring in those non-member States whose co-operation would be necessary in any action, whether conciliatory or of any other kind. The Committee had recommended a Nine-Power conference. There were those who said that the League, in addition to making that recommendation, should take economic action of its own. To embark on action without knowing whether it was likely to be effective would not only have been futile but definitely dangerous. Mr. D. Lloyd George (Independent Liberal) declared that, despite the Government's answer, ho still considered the absence of mention of the League in the Speech rather significant. The League had lost authority because of at least two episodes which had occurred in the lifetime of the National Government, and Ee accused it of having led the League's retreat before th. 3 aggression in both Manchuria and Abyssinia. Mr. Lloyd George proceeded to attack the non-intervention policy, the history of which, he said, was discreditable in many respects end dishonourable in most. If its aim was to prevent foreign intervention it had been a complete and utter failure—an obvious failure, and more, a boasted failure.