FOREIGN POLICY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23688, 21 December 1938, Page 11

FOREIGN POLICY

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH THE POSITION IN SPAIN (British Official Wireless) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraon Copyright) RUGBY, Dec. 19. Replying to Dr H. Dalton’s noconfidence motion in the House of Commons, Mr Chamberlain said that in European countries, which, with the Far East, were the only quarters of the world where possibilities of trouble existed, relations between Britain and France had remained of a most cordial character. He welcomed the fact that M. Bonnet had repeated on Wednesday the Delbos declaration of two years ago that all the forces of France would spontaneously and immediately be used in the defence of Great Britain against unprovoked aggression. Non-Intervention In Spain Referring to the Mediterranean, the Prime Minister said he deplored the continuation of the disastrous civil war in Spain, but claimed that considerable reductions in foreign intervention had been brought about by Britain’s nonintervention policy. Referring to charges by Dr Dalton of continued Italian intervention in breach of the recent pledges, he said that, while it could not be denied that a certain amount of assistance in men and material had been given to both sides in recent months, the Italians sent to Spain, according to iriformation Britain possessed, did not number over 200, and, though the Government regretted that assistance, it could not say really that there had been a breach of faith by Italy. On belligerent rights Mr Chamberlain said he could only repeat what had been said over and over again—that as long as there were foreign troops in Spain and as long as no other solution had been found for the Spanish question other than that evolved by Lord Plymouth’s Committee, Britain did not propose to grant belligerent rights other than in accordance with that committee’s plan. How far it would be possible to discuss at Rome the Spanish matters he could not say, but the House could be sure that they would not depart from the principle which had guided British policy throughout—that the differences between the Spanish parties should be settled by the Spanish people themselvesAt this point Mr Chamberlain observed, “I regret extremely that it should be suggested that Lord Halifax and I require to be hound beforehand by some assurance that we are not going to betray any causes or abandon any vital principles or sacrifice any important interests of either this country or of any of our friends. Such suggestions are intensely insulting to us.” “ It is highly discourteous to hosts to suggest that they would invite us to do anv such thing,” Mr Chamberlain continued. “It is an attempt to boison beforehand the atmosphere of the discussions, and it is totally contrary to the spirit in which we accepted Italy’s invitation. I explained before that we are not going -to Rome with any fixed agenda or with expectations of bringing away any new specific agreement. We are going there to exchange views with Italy upon all or any matters, of common interest. We are going with a general desire to improve our relations by a better understanding of one another’s point of view, and through personal contact to strengthen the confidence between us —a confidence which, if it can be successfully established, must necessarily contribute to the general stability of Europe and more especially the countries bordering the Mediterranean.” THE DOMINIONS’ ATTITUDE ABSENCE OF CRITICISM LONDON, Dec. 19. Mr Chamberlain said: “ It is satisfactory to know that our efforts to keep the dominions fully informed on the foreign situation have been rewarded by a general absence of criticism on their part. Mr Dalton’s policy would have involved war simultaneously with Japan, Italy, and Germany, and perhaps with France. REACTION IN ROME GOOD IMPRESSION CREATED ROME, Dec. 19. Mr Chamberlain’s speech created a good impression in political circles, which are gratified that the Labourite attempts to discredit the forthcoming visit were unsuccessful. The Premier’s statement that he does not exnect a specific agreement causes no surprise, since the coming conversations are regarded purely in, the nature of a full and frank exchange of views. CENSURE MOTION DEFEATED LONDON, Dec. 20. (Received Dec. 20, at 11.55 p.m.) In the House of Commons, winding up the debate. Sir John Simon contended Ihat nothing had happened since Munich to justify a reversal of the verdict of the House, which then approved of the Government’s policy. He said Mr Chamberlain had persisted in seeking peace when everybody eise despaired. The general verdict of the world was that he saved Europe from war. The censure motion v/as defeated by 340 votes to 143. THE LABOUR VIEWPOINT ERRORS OF JUDGMENT (Brlttsn Official Windless) RUGBY, Dec. 19. (Received Dec. 20, at 8 p.m.) At the opening of the House of Commons debate Dr Dalton contended that by a series of big errors of judgment the national governments had brought Britain into direct peril since 1914. The world was strewn with wreckage for which the policy of Mr Chamberlain’s Government and its predecessors

since 1931 had been largely responsible. The Munich agreement had unsettled all Europe, and to-day there was no frontier that could be regarded as reasonably safe.

Sir Archibald Sinclair, who followed the Prime Minister, discussed Mr Chamberlain’s suggestion that the only alternative to his policy was war. He said that on the Liberal benches they repudiated the doctrine of the inevitability of war. It was the abandonment of the principles of the League Covenant which had brought Europe to the edge of war.

What caused him mistrust, Sir Archibald continued, was the evidence in the Prime Minister’s speeches that he misconceived the whole problem, so that he failed to see the controversy, not between those who believed in the inevitability of war and those who did not, but between those who thought with Mr Chamberlain that peace would be secured by appeasing aggression with concessions and those who believed in one-sided concessions, stimulated by the invention of fresh grievances. Mr Lloyd George also deprecated the tendency to represent critics of the Government’s policy as advocates of war. The only question was which was the better method of achieving peace. He expressed doubt whether the Prime Minister was a match for those whom he described as astute, crafty and unscrupulous dictators, with whom he had to negotiate. SCORES OF QUESTIONS (British Official Wirelessi RUGBY, Dec. 19. (Received Dec. 20, at 8 p.m.) In the House of Commons to-day over 60 oral and written answers were given to questions on foreign affairs. Over a score related to the Far East, and in the course of answers Mr R. L. Butler made the noirt that there was no clause in the Nine-Power treaty limiting the period cf its validity and that Britain’s attitude was that it could not subscribe to any modification of existing treaties by unilateral action. A number of other questions concerned the Mediterranean, and the forthcoming visit of the British Ministers to Rome. Mr Chamberlain took the ooportunity to deny categorically rumours that Britain was contemplating the cession of colonial territory to Italy, and added that no such suggestion had been made by Italy. He did not anticioate that it would be possible to begin before or during the Rome visit negotiations on boundary questions affecting British Somaliland and Italian East Africa. He had occasion to repeat the reply of last week that any action contrary to the provisions of the Rome agreement of April last would be a matter of grave concern to Britain, and he recalled again his statement that Britain could* not contemplate any such possibility. He said Britain had not been consulted or been informed by France of its notification to Italy that it would cede no French territory to Italy. With regard to his and Lord Halifax’s conversations in Rome, however, he declared that Britain would naturally remain in close touch with France on that subject, as on all other questions of common interest. He reiterated his refusal to say in advance the subjects to be discussed in Rome.