CASE FOR ETHIOPIA

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23499, 13 May 1938, Page 9

CASE FOR ETHIOPIA

THE ITALIAN CONQUEST LEAGUE COUNCIL DEBATE LETTER FROM HAILE SELLASSIE COUNTRY NOT CONQUERED (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) GENEVA, May 11. _ (Received May 12, at 5.5 p.m.) Looking a tragic figure, with his hands folded over his black cape, Haile Sellassie brightened up and smiled when he saw a cheering crowd, at the station. A few Italians who were present commented: “What a comedy.” The Emperor seemed puzzled and scratched his head while representative Taezas explained the situation at the League. Thereafter Haile Sellassie drove to an hotel, saw a doctor, and went to bed, tired out. Lord Halifax will open the debate on Ethiopia to-morrow. He has supplied Haile Sellassie with a copy of his speech. Members of the Council have received a letter from Haile Sellassie claiming that Ethiopia was not conquered. THE DEBATE OPENED HAILE SELLASSIE PRESENT LONDON, May 12. (Received May 13, at 1.15 a.m.) There was dead silence as the president of the council announced that Haile Sellassie had expressed a wish to participate in the discussion. “It has always been the desire of the council that Ethiopia should participate, irrespective of the question of principle. Therefore, I invite the Emperor to sit at the council table.” The big bronze doors were flung open as Haile Sellassie, accompanied by two Ethiopian delegates, gravely entered. As he took his seat Lord Halifax rose and rejected the contention that Italy does not control Abyssinia. He expressed thq opinion that members of the League must decide themselves whether to recognise the Italian conquest. Italy could only be driven out of Abyssinia by war. Britain’s information was that Italy controlled virtually all the former territory. Ethiopian resistance was being continued in certain parts, but there was no organised native authority, and no central native administration with the slightest possible chance of reconquering the country. The Italian position could only be altered by concerted military action, which was unthinkable and would not be suggested by any reasonable person in any country. “ I realise that many in Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, feel that any action to facilitate recognition of the Italian conquest * impinges a principle. I respect but do not share their view. The British Government, however, does not suggest that the council or any member of the League should condone the action whereby Italy acquired her present position in Ethopia. I do not propose that the League should modify the resolutions or decisions that it took in the earlier stages of the dispute. We declared our judgment on this issue in plain terms and cannot go back thereon. Those seeking to establish a better world basis on League . principles are rightly reluctant to countenance action whereby the principles of the Covenant are infringed. Indeed, the Assembly in 1932 bound itself not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement effected by means contrary to the Covenant, but when two ideals conflict, one devotion unflinching, but not practical, the other practical victories for peace, I do not doubt that the strongest claim is that of peace. Britain’s considered opinion is that, unless we are prepared forever to live in an unreal world the fact of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, whatever our judgment thereon, will have to be acknowledged. Britain does not aoprove of the Italian methods in Abyssinia, but no purpose would be served by vain lamentations over the past.” FRENCH PRESS CRITICAL PARALYSING DIPLOMACY PARIS, May 12. (Received May 13, at 1.15 a.m.) The press is critical of the tactics being employed at Geneva. The Figaro asks: “Why has Haile Sellassie come if not to embarrass Lord Halifax and M. Bonnet? Geneva today is not only a useless organ, but is dangerous where internal policies subversively combine to paralyse diplomacy."