FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22267, 21 May 1934, Page 7

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE FAR EAST AND DISARMAMENT LEAGUE COVENANT REVISION (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric telegni|.b—l'upyr'Rbt ) . . . RUGBY, May 18. Far Eastern affairs, disarmament, and the possibility of re-forming the League of. Nations were among the subjects raised by speakers in a debate in ine House of Commons on the motion for the adjournment, of the House until May 29; The Foreign Secretary (Sir John Simon), replying for the Government, characterised the debate as an expression of the deep concern which they all felt at the international situation, which certainly was difficult, and might become threatening. He agreed that the present Covenant was capable of amendment, but it could only be altered if there was unanimity among the members of die council, after which a majority in the Assembly was required. He took the view that if they were going to revise the League Covenant they wanted Germany in the League to help in the revision. To. revise the League with Germany outside it was a very doubtful expedient He much doubted whether the question could be taken up while the Disarmament Conference was in progress.

Turning to disarmament, Sir John Simon said that Britain was the one great Power that first of all set an example by unilateral reduction of armaments, and which had produced a connected scheme complete with figures. " I do not believe we ought to go to Geneva and start new conditions," he said. "I think we should say we have tried to bring the British draft convention up to date, and we feel it necessary to know what other people think of it." Certainly the British Government would play its full part in saving the world from such a serious calamity as the breakdown of the conference. " But let us not take the foolish view that, supposing it happens, it means the end of the world. On the contrary, if. that happens we have got to start the very nest day on a new effort with a, renewed purpose." =.. ; ~ Replying to specific questions put bySir Stafford Cripps, Sir John Simon.said the answer to the question "Does the Government still stand by the League of Nations' report on the Far East?" •was ,". Certainly." To the question " Do we,'stil] stand by our obligations under the Nine-Power Treaty to respect cbe territorial integrity of China?" . the answer was that Britain remained bound by that treaty as did the other signatories, and the Government would certainly do its best to observe it. On the question whether Britain regarded herself as bound by Article 2 of the League Covenant, the Minister's, answer was that the Government was boundSby every article of the Covenant, and did not repudiate any article. • An important contribution to the Jebate was made by Mr Baldwin. He said: " The question has been asked, What would happen if the Disarmament Conference broke down ? Do not let us assume that it will do so; but if for the time being it should break down, then do not let us lose heart. Let us remember that after all concentrated efforts after peace had seldom been made, if at all, in the world until these postwar years, and it is difficult to break an ingrained human habit in one decade.'* It was, Mr Baldwin. said, for. limitation that they had been working in the British convention. Speaking for himself, he thought limitation the only practicable form of disarmament in the air. " If you could get limitation no single Power would be in a position of such superiority that the temptation to attack would become irresistible." But there was a corollary. If Britain di<l agree to limitation it was difficult to see how sanctions against anyone who> broke that limitation could be voided. " The moment you are up against sanctions," said Mr Baldwin, "you are up against war. In other words, if you are going to adopt sanctions you must be prepared and ready for war. If you adopt sanctions without being ready you are not an honest trustee of the nation. There is no doubt in my mind that if you are •going to force collective guarantees or collective sanctions it means that you have got to make this country a good deal stronger than it is to-day." Mr Baldwin said he knew the anxiety felt in Britain in regard to the air, especially if the Disarmament Conference should fail and no agreement for air limitation be reached. That anxiety had not been lessened by the events in Europe during the last few months. The House would remember his recent statement on behalf of the Government 'Pgatding this subject. That statement stood. He knew his friends hoped that he would say when and in what circumstances the Government would make a more definite declaration. They could trust the Government, which was also anxious on that matter, but he would say one thing which would allay anxiety. Any decision to increase the Air Force could not be put into effect without months of detailed preparation. EJe would say the preliminary work was now being done si. that if their fears w»re realised, and.it was necessary to implement the pledge he had given, not a single day would be lost. In view of the general anxiety on the subject, it was right that the Government should take such a course, but he was also certain that there was no danger in the near future before Britain, and there might be less danger in the future than they imagined. SIT'ATTON IN FAR EAST. JAPANESE EXPANSION. • LONDON, May 18In initiating the debate in the House of Commons, Sir Stafford Cripps (Labour) sharply attacked Japanese expansion in China. He said that once Japan had digested the north, she would be ready -lor a bit of South China, and

Britain and the other European Powers would be forced out of the Far East altogether. Admiral Sir Roger Eeyes said that Japan was destined to play a very great part in the East. He advised the Government to come to a good understanding with Japan. The best guarantee for world peace was a properly defended British Empire. Singapore was no more a menace to Japan than Portsmouth was to New York. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT. . "BLEATINGS" OF LEADERS. LONDON, May 19. (Received May 20, at 7 p.m.) The News-Chronicle ays: "A study of the speeches by Mr Stanley Baldwin and Sir John Simon would show how British diplomacy maintains its foreign reputation for hypocrisy, despite their fulsome professions of attachment to peace. Europe vainly awaited a clear lead from England, but failure was foreshadowed by the pitiful bleatings of Sir John Simon and Mr Stanley Baldwin. War is upon us, yet apparently the initiative which these peace lovers could not be induced to take on behalf of will be taken instantly when war is in prospect. Sir John Simon's cowardly repudiation of our responsibilities in China and his slavish flattery of Japan complete the picture. The world is drifting to the shambles of another 11)14 because those who should have been the guardians of peace lack the courage of their convictions and sincerity to act upon them." The Times says: "The British Government has itself largely to thank for the multitude of counsellors and the multiplicity of remedies of which Sir John Simon complained. It has too often given an impression of uncertainty just when Europe is seeking a lead. This criticism is particularly applicable to the Government's recent disarmament policy, which problem now rouses the greatest public uneasiness."