PEACE BY CONCILIATION

Northern Advocate, 24 October 1935, Page 7

PEACE BY CONCILIATION

DUTY OF LEAGUE

ALL MUST CO-OPERATE DEFENCE OF COVENANT [British Official Wireless.l (Received 10 a.m.) RUGBY, October 22. TN the course of his speech in the House of Commons, Sir Samuel Hoare, referring to the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, said it was the duty of the League to make every effort to secure a settlement by Conciliation.

“Up to August 9,” said the Foreign Secretary, “there was still a possibility of a peaceful settlement which, I think, the Italian Government was unwise to reject, and I am certain the members of the League 'would have been unwise to frustrate.

“Had there been abrupt or hasty procedure, there would not have been the unanimity since witnessed, which was /going to be of immense importance, when it came to a final settlement of the dispute.

When he looked at the ev’ents, and thought of the difficulties, his surprise was not that the League action had been tentative and sometimes hesitating, but that it had been taken at all.

It was the first great occasion on the most difficult provisions of the Covenant had been put to the test, and in the most difficult circumstances. Yet a collective agreement had been reached, first upon the merits of the dispute, and secondly upon the arms embargo, the withdrawal of credit and subject to the considered views of the governments, certain measures of economic pressure. Sanctions Committee. Turning to the’ proposals of the Sanctions Co-ordination Cgmmitte'e at Geneva, Sir Samuel said that no doubt any action of the kind was open to a double-fire criticism. There were those who said it would be futile, and ineffective, and those who said it would lead inevitably to war. “I disagree with both lines of criticism,’’ said the Minister. “I do not believe economic pressure of the kind envisaged, will, in the circumstances, be ineffective. I believe that if it is collectively applied, and if non-mem-ber States of the League do not attempt to frustrate it—and I hope they will not make this attempt—it will definitely shorten the duration of the war.”

However, action, to be effective, must be really effective and all the members of the League must cooperate to resist an attack on any one for action it had taken to defend the Covenant, The French Answer/

In this connection, Sir Samuel referred to communications which have passed between the British and French, Governments, and said: “The French, answer is the answer we felt sure it would be. They interpret Article 16 of the Covenant as we interpret it.” : As to the suggestion that economic pressure must lead to co-called military sanctions. Sir Samuel said: “I will say frankly that, in my view, the conditions for the enforcement of such sanctions, namely collective agreement at Geneva, have never existed. Military sanctions, like economic sanctions, can be applied only collectively, and, so far as we ourselves are concerned, we have made it clear-from the beginning that, although we are prepared to take our full share as a loyal member of the League, we are only prepared to take our share in collective action. Essence of League.

“I emphasise the word collective, for it is the essence and the soul of the League. The action which we have been considering, and which we believe it to be our solemn obligation to consider, is not military but economic. The distinction is that between a boycott and a war. I do not believe anyone in Europe wants war.”

With regard to unscrupulius propaganda which represented the British as war-mongers, determined to plunge the world into a general conflagration, Sir Samuel said: “We have tried to avoid any action or discussion of action that, while impracticable in the present conditions, might yet extend the duration, danger and disaster of the war. But we felt, and still feel, what in truth has been present to the mind of everyone in every member State of the League, that neither the League, nor indeed our civilisation, can condone a multiple breach of treaties and survive, “The economic pressure now proposed is intended not to extend, but to limit the war; not to extend its duration, but to shorten i.t” Honpurable Settlement. The Foreign Secretary emphasised the need to search for an honourable settlement of the unhappy controcersy between Italy and Ethiopia, within the framework of the League. He said he had never adopted an extreme or partisan attitude. He reminded the world of Italy’s claim for expansion and economic security, and made proposals for an investigation of colonial raw material when a peaceful atmosphere could be restored. He said he was continually expressing Britain’s readiness to help to bring about a settlement honourably, and one acceptable to Italy, to Abyssinia and the League. “There is still a breathing space before this economic pressure can be applied. Can it not be used for another attempt at such a settlement, as Italy is still a member of the League? I welcome this fact. Cannot this eleventh-hour chance be so used as to make it necessary to proceed further along this unattractive road of economic action against a fellow member, an old friend and a former ally?” Is There Any Hope? Sir Samuel said he knew not whether there was any hope in that appeal, but great issues were at stake. The world was putting collective security to the test. If it proved effective, a gain of immense value would have been achieved. If it failed, then heavy disappointment would have fallen on all those who desired to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy, and equally heavy responsibility on those who worked against it. At least let there be no illusions. “If we can depend upon collective action let us know it, said the Foreign Secretary. “If we

cannot depend upon it, let us know it, and let us further know who are loyal supporters of collective security, and who are those who, like shouting for it in theory, attack and abuse those who wish to apply it in practice.

“In any case the crisis which confronts us is not of a few days or a few weeks, but a symptom of wider and, more protracted movements, iJvhich can be controlled by steady pressure . and . constant determination to face* the facts of a changed and changing world. “It is because our eyes are fixed on the distant future that we pray that the principles of collective action may be upheld' and a way speedily found to end the present hateful controversy.

Speaking of the British delegation’s work at Geneva, Sir Samuel said: “Already .that myth is being sedulously created that we alone, and the Minister tor the League of Nations Affairs, Mr Anthony Eden, in particular, are making proposals and that we are constantly taking the lead in discussions. As for Mr Eden, there never has been any difference between him and me, or him and the Government.

“With great ability, Mr Eden has been carrying out the Government’s policy, and the Government has been giving 'him its full support. I am not afraid of the charge that we have given the lead, but I will say a word in answer. I will tell the House frankly, and definitely, that I do not believe the representations of Great Britain and the British Empire can have a secondary part in any international discussion.

“Representatives of the great Empire cannot abdicate their responsibility or disguise their views.” Malicious Representations.

People who attempted to 'make it clear that Britain alone was active and was using the League for selfish ends, and to spread the gross and malicious representations which had appeared recently in sections of the foreign Press, were doing their best to kindle a conflagration in Europe and their best, by traducing their motives of the members of the League in honestly carrying out its obligations, to destroying the League itself. “As a matter of fact, if the discussions at Geneva had been in public, it would have seemed that an important and prominent part had been taken by representatives of other countries. Sir Samuel dealt with accusations that the British Government and the League had been too long inactive regarding the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia. He spoke of the incessant representations the British Government had made to the Italian Government, beginning as far back as the end of last year, and rebutted again the charge of delay in meeting the Italian request for an exchange of views on the respective interests in Ethiopia.