MR JORDAN AT GENEVA

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23529, 18 June 1938, Page 32

MR JORDAN AT GENEVA

COVENANT MUST REMAIN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY VIEWS ON THE ABYSSINIAN QUESTION (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON. May 18. “ While New Zealand recognises that the League has, on more than one occasion, failed to fulfil its functions, and that the Covenant does not to-day provide the protection it was meant to afford, the New Zealand Government still regard it as absolutely necessary that the Covenant should remain in force in its present, or a similar, form, and deplore any step which would tend to weaken its provisions or the authority of the League.” This viewpoint was expressed by Mr W. J. Jordan (High Commissioner) at the recent Council session of the League of Nations at Geneva. He was speaking on the questions of the consequences arising out of the existing situation in Abyssinia. Haile Selassie had previously addressed the council. “It is a sign of some progress that a monarch of an aggrieved country can state his case and be listened to by representatives of more fortunate nations,” Mr Jordan said. "This was not always so. We trust that this spirit will grow: until all matters of international relationship will be discussed at a table and settled without recourse to the mutual killing of men who bear each other no ill-will—men who, in fact, as fathers and husbands have common interests, and, instead of fighting each other, should meet together. irrespective of colour, language or creed, to consider their mutual welfare and plan for their advancement in conditions and culture. “We appear to be a long way from that state of civilisation at present, and may sometimes seem to be but little distance from the brute. Disappointments and seeming failures will be encountered, but if we realise our responsibilities and opportunities, and work accordingly in this generation, that is all we can do. “The statements made bv the representative of Ethiopia are' sufficient to arouse passion in all who are mindful of their duty towards each other, and surely a civilised nation will make amends for any action taken by its people in the hysteria and madness of war in its future dealings with the victims of that action. We have been appealed to to. listen with understanding, but it is difficult to understand such actions as are depicted, and we hope that if such actions were committted the guilt is upon irresponsible persons and not upon authority. .. A SPECIFIC MATTER

“We are here -to consider a specific matter concerning Ethiopia. May I remind the Council that on March 11, 1932, the Assembly declared by a resolution unanimously adopted that ‘it is incumbent upon the members of the League not to recognise any situation, treaty, or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Pact of Paris.’ Let us recall also Article 10 of the Covenant, which reads: * The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League.’

“The New Zealand Government stand by that resolution as unanimously adopted by the’Assembly, and they stand by the Covenant. We repeat and reaffirm our considered view that there is no material fault in the Covenant as" it stands, that the fault lies *in 'the failure—in our failure as Governments—to apply it. In our view, the League of Nations should not divest Itself of responsibility by leaving the issue to individual Governments, each to choose for itself, for that js a direct denial of the collective responsibility which is fundamental. ..

-“The League in its Assembly agreed to sanctions. The Assembly condemned Italy’s aggression in Ethiopia. Now, the Council is considering the question of allowing any who wish to do so to take their own line of action. It cannot be right to go back on the principles of the Covenant, or to condone acts of aggression, and, while that is neither slated nor intended, our action might be so interpreted. “ It was the Assembly which recommended the lifting of sanctions, at the same time reaffirming its attachment to the principles of the Covenant. It is the League, acting collectively, and not Governments acting separately, which ought to deal with the matter. NO SEPARATE DECISIONS “ My Government holds the view that, if recognition were ever to be afforded, it should be in accordance with a general resolution of the League and not by separate decisions by individual members. What is the League formed for? Surely, to safeguard the independence of States. States have declared in effect that they would not interfere with the independence of other nations, the desire being to stop the operation of the laws of the jungle and to oppose the philosophy that the weak must go to the wall. “The proceedings in which we are engaged, however they may be disguised. will only be regarded as a stage further in the surrender to aggression, and will be regarded as one further step in the retreat from collective security—a retreat the consequences cf which are seen in the frantic search in so many countries for a security sought in the superior armed strength of each country over every other country, r “That is the tragedy of the retreat from collective security. It directly connects our proceedings here with the race in armaments, and wc cannot help recalling that the expenditure on armaments in all countries renders Im-

possible those high standards of wellbeing and living which the world today is capable of providing. “ The suggestion of to-day is a compromise between leaving the League and remaining loyal to the Covenant. According to this suggestion, any nation may remain in the League and at the same time disregard the terms of the Covenant. It seems illogical to retain the Covenant and decide that any member State who wishes may disregard it. The New Zealand Government cannot support, any proposal which would involve, either directly or by implication, approval of a breach of the Covenant.”