THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1928. AMERICA AND ARBITRATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20113, 26 November 1928, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1928. AMERICA AND ARBITRATION.

From Washington, and so with a . large measure of authority, conies tho information that President Coolidgo is willing that his {Secretary of State shall reopen with foreign Powers tho question of the adherence of the United States to tho Permanent Court of International Justice. Is the influence of Mr. Hoover, who has a broader . outlook and a firmer touch on foreign affairs than Mr. Coolidgo has shown, already felt in White House? Docs the change in the personnel of the Senate, giving it a Republican majority, augur more sympathetic regainl for the League of Nations or ■ at least this sphere of its work? Possibly, even probably. But the announcement is cautiously phrased. There is no word in it of retreat from the former position. It is proposed to reopen the question, the message : indicates, with a view to getting the approval of the foreign Powers to the reservations advanced by the Unifetd States when previously expressing readiness to join the World Court. That approval is not likely to be gained. There are good reasons why it should not be given. Ono of the reservations amounts to a thoroughly unacceptable stipulation, as the United States Government must have known at (he time it was framed. In all probability, it was put forward to provide a justification, seemingly serious if not very plausible, for American aloofness from formal identification with tho League. But it is something that the United States seeks to have the question reviewed. When once the new negotiations are begun there can bo easy forgetfulness of the terms of the request for them, and a more satisfactory state of affairs be instituted than has obtained. It. may prove to be the thin end of the wedge that is to open a way for full American participation in the work of tho League. Even the slightest possibility of that is enough to make the announcement interesting and welcome. Apart from a share in some activities of the League through American representation on certain committees of investigation, this share being taken on the distinct understanding that it implies no official countenance of the League, it is in the World Court that the United States has been most closely in touch with the League. Among the eleven judges and four deputy-judges has been an American—Judge J. P». Moore, since the first election of the bench in 1921, and Judge C. L. Hughes, elected a few weeks ago to fill the vacancy created by Judge Moore's resignation before his term of nine years had expired. The election is inade by the Assembly of the League: it is not an appointment by the United States, and there were nationals of other Powers nominated in the Assembly for the recent ballot to fill the vacancy. Even this participation is therefore in no sense official. However, since President Coolidge's predecessor, Mr. Harding, favoured the adherence of tho United States to the World Court, it has been at this point that America has most seriously considered taking an official part in any activity of the League. But the desire to participate has been at best half-hearted. Mr. Harding laid down four conditions. Mr. Coolidgo added another. Thus came the five reservations which have been so much discussed. Briefly put, they attach a fivefold limitation to America's readiness to adhere to the court: no legal relation to the League of Nations; equality in participation in the election of judges as if sho were a member of the League; determination by Congress of her share of the court's expenses; freedom to withdraw adherence, and no amendment to the initiating statute of the court without her consent; and, finally, all advisory opinions expressing the findings of the court to be made publicly after notice to every Power interested, and no request for an opinion to be forwarded to the court by the League, toyhing any matter in which America has or claims to have an interest, without her consent being first obtained. In presenting these reservations, the United States Government insisted that, discussion of them should proceed by means of Notes exchanged with the various Powers signatory to the protocol establishing the court, thus raising an additional difficulty, since this procedure did not conform to the method provided for dealing with any proposed change. It was evident that in American eyes the reservations bulked larger than the desirability of joining in the work of any department of the League. It ought to be noted that the members of the League did their utmost to meet the American demands. The good faith of the United States was generously assumed by them at a conference in Geneva two years ago; They wore prepared to waive objections, and did so concerning every reservation but that added by Mr. Coolidge. Its second clause was really an insistence on a right of veto: it demanded for the United States tho unique advantage of

blocking consideration by the court of any case to which that nation might be, directly or indirectly, a party. This "position the signatory Powers could not accept. *lt would have made tho whole sehemo of arbitration farcical. The concessions made by tho signatory Powers were churlishly brushed aside by the United States: after playing with tho question as a shuttlecock in American party politics for years, this Power announced in February of last year that it would proceed 110 further. It was a sorry exhibition. A majority of the Senate, actuated by party prejudice, mado sport of previous resolutions of Congress favouring adherence to the court; a weak President accepted without a murmur the dictation of the Senate, although ho had knowledge of a strong body of popular opinion in support of adherence; and the path of inglorious unconcern about international peace was taken without even a show of l'cgret. In that position matters have remained where apparently they were meant by America to remain. But now, the presidential election over and the situation changed in a way that robs the Government of its earlier cover for doing nothing to promote the system of international arbitration it had espoused in empty words, there is an obvious call for fresh action of some sort. It is to be hoped that willingness to renew negotiations may lead to readiness to retreat from an indefensible attitude.