THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19027, 29 May 1936, Page 2

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

HAS IT FAILED? at sixes and sevens PROBLEM OF PRESTIGE LONDON, April 12- , •‘The League of Nations is a failure. This is now u. cry re-eehoed from eapitaUo capital throughout Europe and the other continents, writes the Geneva co - respondent of the A 11 1. critical moment of the League s lusloiy, it may he well for a sober be at m international peace to ask himself hanklv whether there is not some foundation i'n fact for the charge. Why is the League a failure ? Because no real and concerted attempt has ever been made to make it a success, tlmt is, to carry out the provisions laid dotvn in its own covenant. During this last week at Geneva, a week which may well he momentous in world history, the strength and no weakness' of the League system W been elearly shown. After all, what we call “the League” is little more than an international barometer registering. In will of Governments to co-operate, ami the secretariat is. as it were, the meicitrv of this barometer. This week the barometer of < international collaboration has register stonuv weather, ending with a "P" ward trend. When thev came to Geneva after the interlude in London, the great Powers, above all Great Britain and !we, found themselves at sixes ami sevens, ft is simply _ waste of breath to deny that the policies of the rierich ,„,d British Governments were hopelessly loggerheads at the very moment when, ii ever thev should have been concerti„,r joint measures on the circumstances created bv Herr Hitler’s repudiation of ] oca [•no. on the new situation created l' v Marshal Bndoglio’s smashing victories in North east Abyssinia. THE DILEMMA

1 heard the dilemma well put the other day: “The trouble is,” said my informant, “that the two great Powers who ought at this critical moment to be co-ordinating the action of the Governments for peace, are carrying on their backs each a different ‘old man of the sea.’ France is carrying Signor Mussolini, Great Britain is carrying Herr Hitler; both Powers are staggering under their respective burdens. “ ‘National’ prestige, which ought not to weigh so heavily as it does, is enterxng more and more the argument. France cannot recede lrom the non possumus attitude taken up by Al. Flandin on March 7 last. Great Britain s prestige is deeply involved in the defence of the covenant, to which Mr. Eden has apparently irretrievably committed her. And the dictators stand aside and laugh.’’ Placed between the upper and nether millstones of the dictators and the democratic Great Powers the small nations are fumbling, seeking for guidance, wondering where they should put their trust. Herr Hitler promises them 25 years’ peace—on conditions. But they cannot forget his expressed intention of crushing at hist leisure those of them who stand in his way. Signor Mussolini openly derides the League, and he lias certainly carried out his intention of "‘Toing ahead in Abyssinia, with the League, without the League, or against the League.” . i Is this impasse inherent in tlie Covenant ? Is international collaboration really impossible? Is collective Security unattainable? These three questions are becoming an agonising problem for the small nations in particular. But, everyone seems to have forgotten Article 151 of the Covenant, which reads:—

'’The Assembly, may from time to time advise the reconsideration Ivy members of the League of treaties which have become inapplicable, and the consideration of international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world." “OPEN DIPLOMACY” It may be permitted to ask why the Governments which, have canvassed every article in the covenant have never bethought themselves of article 15. U may also be asked why the'Government’s which have openly torn up the covenant of Locarno did not bethink themselves of utilising article 19 before they resorted, to force. Herr Hitler could have invoked it; so could Signor Mussolini, with crushing force, against the slavers of Abyssinia. One is forced to the conclusion that there are those in power who do not wish to use the covenant, who do not wish for peace, nor even for advantages given to them with the free consent of tho nations under an instrument or instruments which they have themselves free/.y signed. The time has come to consider whether the great national problems which sstill beset us after 16 years of an unjiasy peace can properly be settled by the method of “open diplomacy,” The dictators evidently think they cannot; and League opinion is profoundly impressed by the fact that the dictators both represent Powers which have grievances milder the Versailles settlement, which, in other words, belong to the “have nots” as opposed to the “haves.” No sane international opinion erm resist t.ie force of this coincidence, and there is much support here, in theory, at any rate, for Herr Hitler’s contention that the covenant should be separated entirely from the, peace treaties.