UNWAVERING FIDELITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22675, 13 September 1935, Page 9

UNWAVERING FIDELITY

BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE

ATTITUDE OUTLINED AT GENEVA

RESPECT FOR TREATY OBLIGATIONS

In a lengthy speech at Geneva Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Secretary, outlined Britain's attitude to the League, which he declared was one of unwavering fidelity. Referring to the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia, he said: "The Government I represent will, I know, be prepared to take its share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with the problem that is certainly troubling many people at the present and may trouble them even more in the future."

SIR SAMUEL HOARE'S SFEECH

Parliament a great and complicated measure for extending • self-government in India."

Reverting to the British attitude towards the League and to the sincerity of the ideals that inspired it, Sir Samuel Hoare admitted that, while that sincerity sprang from an enlightened self-interest, it also sprang from an enlightened interest in what they believed tq be the best for all. By way of illustration, he chose a question which he said was exercising the minds of many people and many Governments; that was the problem of the world's economic resources and the possibility of making better 'use of them in the future. Abundant supplies of raw materials appeared to givo peculiar advantage to countries possessing them. It was easy to exaggerate the decisive character of such an advantage, for there were countries'which, having little or no natural abundance, had made themselves prosperous and powerful by industry and trade. Yet the fact remained that some countries, either in their native soil or in their colonial territories, so possessed what appeared to be preponderant advantages that others less favoured viewed the situation with anxiety, especially as regards colonial raw materials. It was not unnatural that such a state of affairs should give rise to the fear lest exclusive monopolies be set up at the expense of those countries that did not possess colonial empires.

COVENANT OBLIGATIONS*

BRITAIN'S GOOD FAITH

(British Official Wireless. 1 (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright)

RUGBY, September 11

Sir Samuel Hoare, at the League of Nations Assembly, said the delegates were there as members of a collective organisation, each pledged by certain obligations and each anxious to safeguard the future, of the world by collective action in the cause of peace and progress. In spite of any national faults and failings, he believed that British public opinion had usually shown a sound instinct on big issues, and had I usually in moments of crisis expressed itself with firmness, justice and common sense. The British people supported the League for no selfish motive. They had

"It is clear," he said, " that in the view of many this is a real problem, and we should be foolish to ignore it. It may be that it is exaggerated. It may be also that it is exploited for other purposes. None the less, as a question causing discontent and anxiety, the wise course is to investigate it to see what proposals there are for dealing with it and to see what is the real scope of the trouble, and if the trouble is substantial, to try to remove it. " The view of his Majesty's Government is that the ( problem is economic rather than political and territorial. It is the fear of a monopoly, of the withholding of essential colonial raw materials, that is causing alarm. My impression is that there is no question in the present circumstances of any colony withholding its raw materials from any prospective purchaser. On the contrary, the trouble is that they cannot be sold at remunerative prices. This side of the question was investigated with concrete results by the commission of the Monetary and Economic Conference which met in London in 1933. Its work was directed primarily towards raising wholesale prices to a reasonable level through co-ordination in production and marketing, but one of the stipulations of such action was that it should be fair to all parties, both producers and consumers, that it should not aim at discrimination against a particular country, and that it should as far as possible be worked with the willing co-operation of the consuming interests in importing countries. This precedent may indicate a suitable line of approach to the inquiry, which should be limited in this case to raw materials from colonial areas, including protectorates and mandated territories. I suggest that emphasis in the terms of the reference should fall upon the free distribution of such raw materials among industrial countries which require them so that all fear of exclusion or monopoly may be removed once and for all. The Government I represent will, I know, be prepared to take its share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with the problem that is certainly troubling many people at the present and may trouble them even more in the future.

seen - thet old system of alliances unable to prevent world war, and as practical men and women they wished to find a more effective instrument for peace. They were deeply and genuinely moved by this great ideal. In spite of the 'experiences of the past, the British people had clung to their ideal, and they believed that collective security, founded on international agreement, was the most effective safeguard for peace, and they would be gravely disturbed if the new instrument" that' had been forged were blunted or destroyed. It was necessary, however, not only - to have an ideal, but to consider what were the best measures for achieving it; but in determining the conditions in which the Council was working they must first clear their minds as to what the League was and what it was not. It was not a super-State, not even v a separate entity existing of itself independent of or transcending the States which made up its membership. If. it succeeded it was because its members had in combination with lach other the will and power to apply the principles of.the Covenant. If it failed it was because its members lacked'either the will or the power to fulfil their obligations. Proceeding, Sir Samuel Hoare discussed collective security as an organisation for peace and prevention of war. By collective means it meant much more than what were commonly called sanctions; it meant the whole Covenant. It, assumed scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations. Its foundation was a series of fundamental obligations accepted by members to submit every dispute likely to lead to war to peaceful methods'of settlement according to the procedure provided by the Covenant.

" The attitude of his Majesty's Government has been one of, unwavering fidelity to the. League and all that it stands for, and the case now before us is no exception but a continuance of that rule. Any other view is at once an underestimate of our good faith and an imputation upon our sincerity. I cannot believe that that attitude will be changed so long as the League remains an effective body and the main bridge between the United Kingdom and the Continent remains intact."

The two principal conditions in which the system of collective security was designed to operate were, first, that members should have reduced their armaments to the lowest point insistent with national safety, and enforcement by common action of international obligations; and, secondly, that the possibility was open through the machinery of the League for modification, by consent and by peaceful means, of international conditions whose continuance might be a danger to peace. To complete the system there was normally an obligation'to take collective action to bring war to an end in the event of any resort to war in disregard of the Covenant , obligations. Underlying these, obligations* was the expectation that this system would be subscribed to by the universal world of sovereign States or by far the greatest part of it. The whole system was the most inspiring conception in the history\of mankind. Its realisation, however, could not be easy, even in the most favourable ciicumstances, at the present time, and a much more grievous burden, which in consequence lay upon faithful members, was to preserve what had been won in the struggle for the organisation of peace] ' Still, the obligations of the Covenant remained, and their burden had been increased manifold; but one thing was certain: If the burden was to l>e borne it must be borne collectively. If risks for" peace must be run they must be run by all. " On behalf of his Majesty's Government, I can say that it will be second to none in its intention to fulfil within the riieasure of its capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon it in accordance with what we believe to he the underlying principles ol the League that our people have steadily promoted—and still promote—the growth of self-government in their own territories. It was, for example, only a few weeks ago that I was responsible for helping to pass through the Imperial

The speech of Sir Samuel Hoare made a deep impression on the delegates, according to messages from Geneva. The firm and clear statement of the attitude of the British Government towards the Covenant was followed with profound attention. OLIVE BRANCH TO ITALY GENEVA, September 11, Sir Samuel Hoare's speech was the first he has made at Geneva. He delivered it extremely slowly, with the utmost deliberation and clarity. He disdained the use of rhetoric. Most of the delegates listened through earphones. Four hundred and fifty journalists were present. Baron Aloisi showed no more trace of emotion than the Ethiopians as Sir Samuel Hoare's address proceeded. His reference to war for war's sake appeared to discomfort the Italians; nevertheless, he held out an olive brunch to Italy with the tentative offer to discuss the economic aspect of the advantages enjoyed by colonial Powers. Sir Samuel Hoare was warmly applauded by most of the delegations. The Italians, as can be understood, did not participate, but the Ethiopians showed special enthusiasm. Often during his speech Sir Samuel Hoare looked straight at Baron AlMsi, notably when he said: " We want no more empty chairs at the League." The lobbies buzzed with discussion during the translation. The chief question asked was: " How much has Sir Samuel Hoare unplied by his reference to colonial supplies of raw materials?" ITALIAN VIEW OF SPEECH GENEVA, September 11. The Italians were painfully impressed by Sir Samuel Hoare's speech. They ask: " Why has Britain taken such a

strong and unjust line against her old friend while so weak, a one against Japan and Germany?"

A French commentator said: "It was one of the finest efforts heard at Geneva. It takes us back to Lord Curzon's days. Britain has resumed the undisputed leadership in foreign affairs."

the Associated Press, declared that Mr Bruce's statement on the Ethiopian question was duly appreciated by Italy as a, valuable contribution to moderation and common sense at a moment when speeches were more apt to complicate rather than facilitate the finding of a solution suitable to all.

The Italians' remained in the Chamber while M. Hawariat briefly announced that Abyssinia was willing to discuss any proposals not inspired by personal interest. Her integrity, he said, had been threatened, despite every proposal she had freely made. He sug gested that the League should send a commission of inquiry to Abyssinia. The Emperor would consider any reasonable suggestion for conciliation. THE REACTION OF FRANCE LONDON, September, 11. One of the most eagerly awaited sequels to Sir Samuel Hoare's speech in London, as in Rome, is the reaction of France, which may not be made clear until M. Laval 'addresses the League on September 13, instead of September 12, as originally intended. The Paris correspondent of The Times says the speech made a deep impression, but at least one section of opinion was surprised to note the resolution blasting away the hope nursed in France that Sir Samuel Hoare would he content with vague lip service to the League's ideals. Frenchmen realise that the responsibility of avoiding a crisis rests with Signor Mussolini, but France must now make a decision, from which she frankly shrinks. It is understood that Sir Samuel Hoare showed his speech to M. Laval before its delivery. Postponement of M. Laval's address indicates a desire to consult Ministers before committing France to a definite course. His colleagues are likely to urge a more cautious tone. The Rome correspondent of The Times states that the significance of the Italian reception of the speech is uneasiness as to whether M. Laval will be able to resist what is termed pressure from England. Dr Gayda, in the Giornale d'ltalia" recognises M. Laval's difficulty. He hopes to maintain the loyalty of Franco-Italian friendship, and declares thafc Britain put as a condition for the support of France on the Continent* even for British adherence to Locarno, the conversion of French policy on sanctions, and left France to choose either common action against Italy or the isolation by England from European affairs. REVISION OF MANDATES GENEVA, September 11. Sir Samuel Hoare's reference to the free distribution of raw materials from colonial areas, protectorates, and man dated territories has aroused speculation whether ultimate revision of certain mandates involving France will result in bringing up the question whether Ger many should not be included as well as Italy. COLONIAL RAW MATERIALS GENEVA, September 11. British circles decline to amplify Siq. Samuel Hoare's reference to colonial raw materials except to regard it as tht basis of a possible conference if the tentative suggestion thrown out makes any appeal to Italy. The Associated Press Association learns authoritatively that Sir Samuel Hoare's reference to colonial raw resources was not intended in the slightest to commit the dominions or dominions' mandated territories, only British colonial mandates. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT LONDON, September 12. The Times says: Sir Samuel Hoare expressed the views not only of the Government, but of the nation. The passages of his speech likely to arouse most attention referred to raw materials. Fear oi monopoly makes uneven distribution a cause of anxiety in many countries, yet the mere transference of colonies will not solve the problem any more than the colonisation of tropical territories can possibly accommodate the surplus populations of the European countries concerned. The League, however, offers an opportunity for scientific examination and suitable action. Sir Samuel Hoare soberly appealed to enlightened selfinterest, on which civilisation depends. What war means is plain from the records of 1914. The world still has freedom tb choose. The News-Chronicle states that Sir Samuel Hoare could not have hinted more plainly to France that if the Covenant is upheld France can look for the fullest assistance from Britain under the Covenant an the event of her security being menaced. On the contrary, if tha League collapses Britain will be freed from all international obligations, and will have to reconsider as an island her attitude to Europe. GERMAN PRESS COMMENT BERLIN, September 11. The Tageblatt declared that Sir Samuel Hoare made the rift between. England and Italy so deep that even the greatest optimists cannot entertain illusions about the directness of the opposition. * BARON ALOISI'S MISSION ROME, September 11. Baron Aloisi will not reply to Sir Samuel Hoare. The Official Spokesman explains that Baron Aloisi was sent to Geneva with the sole task of submitting the Italian memorandum, and hu mission is ended as far as Abyssinia is concerned. He remains with the League simply to supply information and exchange views in an absolutely unofficial manner. AUSTRIA LEANS TO ITALY SALZBURG, September 11. (Received Sept. 12, at 7 p.m.) " Austria is favourably impressed with the Italian case," declared Dr Schuschnigg when interviewed for the Daily Mail. " If the League applies sanctions it will result in the gravest situation. One cannot tell where such a disaster will lead." The Viennese press supports the Italian rather llian the British viewpoint. A SPEECH MISINTERPRETED GENEVA, September 11. (Received Sept. 12, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr Stanley Bruce said that vital as were the interests of the nations immediately concerned there were even greater issues emerging, because they involve the whole post-war structure for the maintenance of peace by collective action and renunciation of war. A phrase employed by Mr Bruce, " words spoken here may add to the difficulties of those who are unremittingly working for a solution," caused comment. Mr Bruce explained to the Associated Press that it did not refer to Sir Samuel Hoare's speech, but it was to discourage a genera! discussi-.m on Abyssinia by all the nations at the Assembly. The Italians apparently specially noted the phrase, for Baron | Aloisi, in a message to Australia through

British circles were surprised to hear Mr Bruce's speech interpreted in certain quarters as not fully supporting the British attitude. They point out that Mr Bruce closely consulted Sir Samuel Hoare during the past few days. His attitude throughout was helpful and no portion of his speech could be taken as reflecting on Sir Samuel Hoare's remarks. SUBJECT OF COLONIES SALZBURG, September 11. (Received Sept. 12, at 7 p.m.) "Austria, as wel! as Italy," says the Daily Telegraph's Geneva correspondent " interprets Sir Samuel Hoare's speech to mean that Britain contemplates an inquiry under League auspices to decid<> whether the mere fact of the British ownership of certain territories i? actually any obstacle to the free distribution of their products. It is anticipated that Germany sooner or later will make formal representations on the subject of colonies." ITALIAN BANK RATE LONDON, September 11. (Received Sept. 12, at 5.5 p.m.) The Daily Herald says: There are strong fears in the city that a steep rise in the Italian bank rate is imminent in consequence of Italy's financial position daily becoming worse. ITALY'S PREPARATIONS ROME, September 11. Those who are well informed do not expect that Signor Mussolini will deviate a hair's breadth from his course in consequence of Sir Samuel Hoare's speech. Meanwhile military preparations and the departure of troops are intensified. POSSIBLE DATE OF OFFENSIVE ADDIS ABABA, September 11. Correspondents report that the Abyssinian Government believes that the Italian offensive will open on September 24. BRITAIN'S FIRM ATTITUDE A CURIOUS FRENCH REPORT 'LONDON, September 12. (Received Sept. 13, at 0.45 a.m.) The British press practically unanimously supports Sir Samuel Hoare's declaration. The exceptions include the Daily Mail, which says: "The speech has heightened the alarm amongst the public that the country might bo dragged into a quarrel which will develop from a mere African dispute into a European conflagration." The Morning Post stresses the fact that there was nothing in the speech to suggest that England will act alone. "She could hardly do so, because her disarmament made it impossible for her to assume the role of sheriff to the League or policeman of the world." The Daily Telegraph's Geneva correspondent learns that M. Laval has been in telephonic communication with Signor Mussolini. The correspondent adds that M. Laval can now hardly longer delay a choice between FiancoTtalian co-operation or standing foursquare behind the League. M. Herriot feels that there is no room for divergence of opinion. That explains why M. Laval postponed his speech in the Assembly until Friday. The Daily Express's Geneva correspondent goes further. He say*; "M. Laval, telephoning immediately after Sir Samuel Hoare's speech, pleaded with II Duce for a gesture of conciliation, failing which France would be obliged to side with Britain. He will have Signor Mussolini's answer by Friday. If II Duce sticks to his guns, France will proclaim solidarity to Britain." A curious report emanated from the Petit Parisien's special correspondent at. Geneva, and is published in The Times to the effect that M. Laval, in the course of a conversation with Si? Samuel Hoare and Captain Eden last evening, declared that if the British Government in recent years had shown but a fraction of its present zeal for the principles of the League this disasterous situation would never have arisen. M. Laval is reported to have reproached the British Government for failing to maintain continuity of policy in choosing to stand for the first time on an issue directly threatening the peace of Europe. There was a startling development in this connection early this morning. The Times, in a late edition, states: "It is understood that the French Government, through its Ambassador in London, inquired from the Foreign Oflice whether it may be assumed that the firm attitude now being taken by Britain at Geneva in regard to a case of aggression will henceforward also be adopted in Europe, especially in the event of an act of aggression being committed against Austria. A reply will be awaited with interest elsewhere than in Paris and London, but it is not difficult to deduce this from Sir Samuel Hoare's speech." .Correspondents of the London press at Geneva mention the effect of the speech upon the representatives of the smaller Powers, who openly rejoiced to see Britain taking the lead in Europe. One delegate described the proposed world inquiry into the distribution of raw materials as magnificent offer. Another said: "We should be blind to our own vital interests if we did not follow such a lead."

The Times Geneva correspondent says: " The speecli, masterly and historic, was generally accepted as the most momentous and most satisfactory statement of British policy heard in Geneva for many years. It ended the ambiguity with which British policy has so often been reproached." THE ATTITUDE OF LABOUR SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE OF NATIONS (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 12. The Parliamentary Labour Party held a caucus in Wellington to-day to consider the attitude to be adopted with regard to the situation in Europe. Delegates were unanimously in favour of supporting the League of Nations. Many went so far as to say thai they would agree to the imposition of sanctions, but there was a strong pacifist element which was against this on the ground that sanctions would have to be backed up by military action. As no agreement could be come to on the matter, the caucus decided to leave it open.