BRITISH POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22712, 26 October 1935, Page 7

BRITISH POLICY

AN ATTACK BY MOSLEY “MUDDLING INTO WAR” The external policy of Great Britain should be “ Strength and Peace.” It should combine the power to resist aggression with the restraint which avoids entanglement and provocation, writes Sir Oswald Mosley in the Daily Mail. The policy of the Government is “ Weakness and Aggression.” It bines unilateral disarmament with a meddling and offensive interference in the affairs of highly armed and determined nations. Present policy, in fact, is exactly the reverse of the foreign policy which the interests of the British Empire require, More than that, a policy of war, combined with a long neglect of the means of war, indicates a state of mind verging on madness. Yet this outlook in varying degree is common to all the old parties of the State and renders their continued existence in power a positive menace to the life of the British Empire. Let us for a moment the pretensions of their policy before we return to its realities. They pretend that they risk the fortunes of Britain in the interests of the League of Nations. They claim that they support their signature of the Covenant and that Italy violates her signature of that document by making war on a fellow member. CEASED TO EXIST. The first answer is that the League of Nations as an effective and functioning instrument has long ceased to exist. Its main provisions have already been violated with impunity by a number of countries, including Japan, Poland, Lithuania and Bolivia. Even in the case of Bolivia and Paraguay the League was powerless to prevent a flagrant breach of the Covenant. How, therefore, can it be argued that the same situation prevails as when Britain and Italy appended their signatures to the Covenant? How can it even be argued that the League any longer exists for any serious purpose? The second answer is that Abyssinia has again and again violated the Covenant of the League of Nations without action by the League or any of its member States. For support of this statement we need not rely on Italian evidence, but can turn to the evidence of a Governor of a British colony. _ Sir Edward Grigg, in a letter to The Times on July 8, 1935, stated that “for years past Kenya has been regularly raided for slaves by Abyssinian freebooters.” In fact, not only in Italian but in British territory Abyssinia has for long past violated the Covenant by definite acts of war. “CAN DO NOTHING.” The League has done nothing, and the League can do nothing. The British Government also has done nothing while British subjects were carried into slavery. To such final depths of decadence have recent Government reduced a great nation of which Lord Palmerston said: “A British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of Eng land will protect him against injustice and wrong.” Now the British Government assails Italy for doing what Britain used to do. How can we, of all nations, blame her for saving her subjects and her territory from a danger in face of which the League has proved to be impotent? How can we accuse her of v’oloting a Covenant which has long been torn to shreds? So inexplicable is the attitude of the British Government to fo.-cign opinion that not only in Italy but in Fiance they are credited with designs of Imperial expansion in the regions affected. We at least know our rulers too well to credit any such charge. Why should a Government which has just given away India seek fresh territory or influence for the British Crown? That is not ’the stuff of which they are made. For these are the men who have just provided a spectacle unique in history. (Many Empires have been taken away; the British Empire is the first to be given away.) We, therefore, have to seek ‘ elsewhere for their motives. FEAR OF NEW,WORLD. What is behind this strange confusion in the minds of parties which brings us near to war at a moment when Britain has not the means to defend herself from attack, let alone to attack others? The only answer is ihe fear and haired of the Old World for the new. For long past they have sought to use the idealistic conception of the League of Nations ns an instrument to encircle the resurgent Fascist nations; first Germany, then Italy. To this end they have not hesitated to use the vile weapon of the Soviet, whose Whiffy Litvinoff now presides over the League. This is not a League of Nations, but the old Balance of Power in a more vicious and dangerous form, based, not on British interests, but on political prejudice. This is not “ collective security,” but “collective madness,” making war inevitable if permitted 'o prevail. Wo say to those who muddle ns into war while they betray their trust by leaving Britain defenceless: “Mind Britain's business and leave Europe alone.” To muddlers and traitors wo sny: “ Keep out and stay out.”