LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 3522, 13 September 1921, Page 17

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

MEETING AT GENEVA. FORTY-EIGHT NATIONS REPRESENTED. GENEVA. September 5. The General Assembly of the League of Nations has opened. Forty-eight nations were l’epresented, compared with 41 at the first Assembly. Mr Wellington Ivoo (Chinese Ambassador in London), president of the Council of the League, delivered the opening address in English. Mr Wellington Koo’s address emphasises the fact that the league has passed the experimental stage and has become an in* dispensable factor in the machinery by which human affairs are conducted. As the league’s authority has increased, heavier tasks are being laid upon it. On Mr Balfour’s motion Dr Van Karnebeck (Dutch Foreign Minister) was elected president. ASSEMBLY'S SECTIONAL WORK. GENEVA, September 6. With the appointment of the commissions, which take charge of the sectional work of the Assembly, the Australian delegation started work in earnest. Mr Bruce was elected to Commissions No. 1 (dealing with constitutional matters, including the amendment of the covenant), 4 (which deals with finance and the Budget), and 6 (dealing with political disputes between States and the admission of new States). Mr Shepherd was elected to No. 2 (which receives reports of the various commissions which sat during the year), 3 (disarmament), and 5 (humanitarian, such as the opium traffic, women and children, and typhus). September 7. A Geneva telegram reports., that the Amendments Commission of the League of Nations rejected Argentina’s demand, which was put forward in 1920, for immediate admission to the League of Sovereign States. LABOUR’S DEMAND. LONDON, September 7. At the Cardiff Conference Mr J. R. dynes moved a resolution demanding the reorganisation of the League of Nations to provide adequate representation of the democracy of all nations. He said that permanent peace could be secured only by the erection and creation of an international body possessing the confidence of the people of each country. That could be obtained only by adequate direct representation of Labour on the Council of the League. The Conference adopted Mr Clynes motion demanding the reorganisation of the League of Nations in order to provide the fullest apportunity for the adequate

representation of all nations, with the object of obviating the catastrophe of another war. BOLIVIA AND CHILE. GENEVA, September 7. An interesting problem affecting the Monroe Doctrine and also the League’s power to revise treaties was discussed at the Assembly, Bolivia requesting that the Assembly revise the Treaty of 1904 between Bolivia and Chile by which Bolivia surrendered certain territory to Chile. The Bolivian delegates claimed that Article 19 of the Covenant empowered the Assembly to reconsider the Treaty. The Chilian delegates opposed Bolivia’s argument, arguing that the Treaty had been carried out, and therefore Article 19 was not applicable. The delegates protested against the attempt to utilise the League in order to recover territory surrendered under a 17 year old Treaty. Other Bolivians, in dull, lengthy speeches, pleaded that the League should rescue Bolivia- from a semi-dependent status. A Chilian delegate hinted that the League was not competent to deal with the matter because it was purely an American affair. The Chilians broadly suggested that the League could not interfere in questions exclusively affecting countries of the New World. The Assembly eventually postponed the subject, but it must sooner or later decide whether it is competent to deal with purely South American questions, especially as the South American delegates number nearly one-third of the Assembly. The United States’s refusal to share the League’s work is a. lurking unknown factor behind the South American questions, and will not make the League’s task easier. It is noteworthy that Peru, Bolivia’s ally in the war of 1879, promised to support the claim, but has not yet attended the Assembly.LORD ROBERT CECIL SATISFIED. GENEVA, September 8. Lord Robert Cecil, speaking on the Secretariat’s report on the League of Nations Council’s work, said that he was satisfied with the wav which the different questions had been dealt with, but he criticised .the Secretariat on some of its deliberations. Publicity, he said, ivas the league’s very lifeblood, without which it could not survive. He hoped that the Upper Silesian question would be settled in a msaner not only just, but such as would appeal to the whole world. Referring to the mandates, Lord Robert Cecil said that if the question were at a standstill it would be the fault of the United States, which did not want the question dealt with in its absence, but at the same time it had refused the league’s invitations of March 26 and June 28. He had just learned of a new proposal emanating from the United States, and though

lie did not desire to criticise Washington he regretted that the league's good reputation had been diminished. Lord Robert Cecil said that he did not want the league to be accused of helping any move for the annexation of the mandatory districts. Speaking of disarmament, Lord Robert Cecil said that it was high time that the league acted, as armaments had increased since the war. He moved—“ That the status of the A and B mandate be definitely settled.” MR BALFOUR’S VIEWS. GENEVA, September 10. Mr Balfour, replying to Lord Robert Cecil's speech, said that disarmament was the most important and difficult question before the League. Though it was evident that the question had not been settled, some progress had been made. Certain countries in Central Europe had actually diminished their armaments and military budget. One factor had made disarmament difficult. It was expected that we would emerge upon a tranquil, pacific world, whereas wars and rumours of wars had not ceased. Upon such conditions it was difficult to work for a solution of the problem of disarmament. Moreover, the absence of certain Powers rendered the work of the League less effective. It was difficult to limit the manufacture of war material when certain countries did not belong to the League, and refused to discuss the matter TERRITORIAL IXTEGRITY. GENEVA, Septembet 9. The Amendments Commission adopted the Jurists’ interpretation of clause 10, to the effect that it does not assure the perpetuity and integrity of territorial and political divisions since military aggression might produce territorial changes, and it does not impose on members of the League the obligation to furnish armed forces to guarantee menaced territorial integrity. MANDATE TERRITOR 1 EN. NEW YORK. September 10. As the result of direct exchanges of opinion between Mr Shide-hara (the Japanese Ambassador) and Mr Chas. Hughes (Secretary of State) the conclusion has been readied that a treaty must be negotiated between the United States and the Allies to ensure that America shall he equipped with rights to control the mandate territories. AUDACIOUS FRENCH PROPOSAL. GENEVA. September 8. M. La Fontaine made a remarkable proposal to the League of Nations, which he himself characterised as audacious. He said the world was suffering from enormous debt. A year’s interest at 5 per cent, was 61 milliards of francs, of which only 11 per cent, was pre-war debt. It was not right that those who had lost most

should be sufferers, while neutrals became richer. He wanted the whole debt to become the debt of the League, with the creation of an international market.