NEUTRALITY IN SPAIN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23014, 17 October 1936, Page 15

NEUTRALITY IN SPAIN

T.U.C. GOVERNMENT 3,000,000 AGAINST INTERVENTION ‘From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, Sept. 12. By a majority of nearly 3,000,000 votes, the Trades Union Congress at Plymouth this week declared for a policy of non-intervention in Spain, a decision which supports the attitude adopted by the National Government. The debate occupied an entire morning. Sir Walter Citrine, general secretary, in supplementing a report by the General Council on tne Spanish situation, said that the council had found itself placed ir a dilemma to judge whether the risks involved by intervention included war or not. The French Government had concluded that if it went on supplying the Spanish Government with munitions there would probably be a European war. It was known, he added, that Hjller and Italy were supplying arms to the rebels. The Labour and Social Conference at Brussels therefore decided that they had no alternative but to publish a manifesto declaring in unmistakable terms the right of the Spanish Government to be supplied with the munitions it needed. Within a few days of that declaration the world awakened to the fact that Italy was mobilising its official forces to put behind the Spanish re’- ;Is. A Labour deputation to Mr Anthony Eden told him that evidence proved that the word of Mussolini and Hitler was not to be trusted, irrespective of what they might sign. , . *■ The Government never left the slightest doubt in our minds that they regarded it as absolutely imperative, 1

if the peace of Europe was to be preserved, to back up to the fullest in their power the proposals of the French Government for non-intervention. “They said it was essential to avoid war.” ARGUMENT OF FORCE Sir Walter added that some of them had a natural feeling that they ought to take action to try to prevent Italy or Germany from supplying munitions, but he went on: “I beg of you to try to stifle your natural impulses and try to use your brains. “ In other words try to see what the practical aspects of the case are and then reason it out from the point of view of what is best for the Spanish comrades and the world as a whole. “ How can you restrain the Governments of Italy and Germany from supplying arms to the rebels? We all know the reckless foreign policy which is being pursued by the dictators in both those countries. “So long as they have been ready to face the risk of war their policy has been a policy of men who have no real regard for the consequences of their actions. "Therefore we were entitled to ask ourselves: Are they bluffling in regard to Spain? Would they be ready to face the risk of widespread conflict on an issue of that kind? “ We know perfectly well that protests won’t restrain them. 1 have not disguised my view that the only way you can deal with a bully is by superior force. You cannot deal with Hitler or Mussolini by resolutions or protests” Sir Walter maintained that the only answer would be to place a naval blockade around the coasts of Spain. That might mean military or naval action. “ Dare I tie the British labour movement or British' public movement to take that sort of action? ” he asked. "Frankly I could not .say ‘Yes’ to that.” “Just as we feel strongly that wt 1 ought to back the Spanish Govern*

ment, you must equally remember that I a] y ,“d Germany feel. equally strongly that they ought to supply the rebels. Morally, right is entirely on our side, but even the legal right could be got over with the greatest possible ease. It meant, therefore, that in the absence of agreement, various Powers m greater or less degree, would be entitled to send munitions to Spain. . There are great sections of public ppmion in this country who would object to the British Government taking sides. On the other hand, the Fascist Governments would have no such considerations.” If anybody could supply munitions it would be Italy and Germany. The democratic Governments had their own domestic needs to consider. The Labour Party and the General Council had tried to face up to the realities of the situation. Was any democratic Power in the world readv to take the risk of war in a situation of this kind? Certainly the French Government was not, unless it was sure it had the overwhelming backing of Great Britain and the other Powers. The National Council of Labour found itself in a dilemma and It felt it was not advisable to attempt to interfere with the non-intervention agreement which was then being framed. “Our present policy is a most difficult one for Socialists to operate when all their sympathies are the other way. Your General Council decided that this policy, distasteful as it is to them, is the only practicable policy which can be followed in the present position. We do not accept the gibes that we arc following the British Government. "We are not even taking our policy from the Socialist-led Government of France, which was the initiator of this agreement. We decided on our policy, unpopular as it may be, because we believe the policy is right, however distasteful,” iCheersjL