Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1930 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS’ COVENANT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 18 December 1936, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1930 THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS’ COVENANT

IN relation to obligations incurred under the League ot Nations’ Covenant, the British Foreign Secretary has said in the House of Commons, “The British Government does not consider the proposals for an international force under League (of Nations’) control, or the allocation to the League of a definite proportion of the armed forced of its members to

be practicable at present.” The statement grew out of a discussion which evidently had reference to the use of force (if necessary) by the League for the purpose of carrying out the terms of its Covenant. If any nation, which is a member of the League, ‘“resort to war in disregard of its covenants .

it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League. . . .” Therefore when Italy without provocation invaded Abyssinia (both Italy and Abyssinia being members of the League), Article 16 of the Covenant, part of which has been quoted, came into force, and, technically speaking,

Italy was at war, not only with Abyssinia, but with all the nations of the League. However, rather than bring Italy to book by force of arms, the League adopted the economic blockade as a means by which to enforce its edict, but entirely failed to attain

ts object, since Italy successfully de-

fied the blockade, and to-day remains in possession of Abyssinia, which has become part of Italy’s African Empire. Naturally the small nations of ihe League, seeing the Covenant thus broken, have become alarmed, and “the New Zealand Government has In-

formed the British Government of its intention to set out its views on the League Covenant.” Hence Mr Eden’s statement (part of which has been quoted), which seems to mean that Britain is not ready to employ force for the purpose of implementing the edicts of the League. When pressed to give fuller information, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons, “There are of course different views about the future of the Covenant, between the Dominions, and even between members of the House.” The British Government sees in the League’s influence an instrument of great potency, but in the League’s forcible interference in international affairs the British Government sees enhanced trouble, and probably war, to prevent which is the primary reason of the League’s existence.