BRITAIN AND LEAGUE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19334, 26 May 1937, Page 9

BRITAIN AND LEAGUE

PLEDGES UNFULFILLED AIR. T. TODD'S CRITICISM ADDRESS TO LAP.OUU PARTY Keen criticism of the policy of the British Government towards tlio League of! Nations was expressed by Mr. T. Todd, secretary of the Gisborne branch of the Longuc of Nations Union, in an address made Ins! even in;;- to members of tho Labour Party in Gisborne. .Mr. Todd was one of two speakers invited by the party to meet the branch and discuss the League programme, the otuer speaker being Canon A. I'. Hall, presi.lent of lliC Cisbomo branch, who described himself as the needle making way fur the thread of Mr. Todd's address.

Tin' visitin;» speakers were warmly welcomed by a huge number of Labour Party members, and Mr. K. Harris, who presided, assured them of close attention to their remarks. Both the speakers, said Mr. .Harris, wovo known as students of international developments, and their views upon the pn'M'iil situation would prove most interesting.

Brotherhood of Man. ('anon Hall intimated his conviction that the League of Nations Union and the Labour Party had much in common, both standing for the brotherhood of man, and the abolition of the hell of war. People need only spend a little thought upon Hie sufferings of non-combatants in Spain to-day, to realise how terrible was the toll of war, and the worth of any movement which included the abolition of war among its objectives. It was easy to say thai Ihe League of Nations had failed, said Canon Flail, and in some respects it was impossible to argue wit h that comment. On the other hand, there was satisfaction in contemplating some aspects' of the League's work, for the League had :it least delayed war, and had exercised a strong restraining influence Oil belligerent Millions ill the recent past, giving some promise of a greater influence for the future. The League had done wonderful work for the advancement of humanity, he claimed, and with proper support: would do greater work still. "War Almost, Inevitable" "War is ahead of us. It's almost inevitable!" said Mr. Todd.' 'The ex. ponditnre mi defence shows that the r.rilish estimates for the coining yeai nive a vote for defence of 1:277.0(14,000 Compared with the total income of C 797,289.000. that, gives a ratio of 34.8 per cent. We have never bad anything like, thid before in lime of peace, but. f.liiit< is ii trifle compared with tho I jjrr'ures for Russia and Germany, Geneva

estimates thai in 1935 Russia spent iJBCO.OCO.COO and it is higher now. Their estimates for 1037 are 20,102,000,000 roubles, an increase, of nearly 36 per cent on lffio and that would 'be larger than I93f>. Germany's figures are kept secret., but are now probably, like tho Russian, well over the thousand million sterling.

"That cannot, go on. Similar competition in armaments led to iho hist war, the danger is much greater now. What has become of the. League of Nations? We hoped it would prevent war. For a lime it did, but in .September, 1931, Japan attacked Manchuria, drove out the Chinese Government, soldiers and officials, and set up a puppet state of its own. The League talked all round it for nearly 18 months, passed a unanimous vote of censure on Japan, and let it go at that. We are told that we could ih> nothing because the United Slates is not in the League. We are not told bow eager the United States Government, was'to co-operate with the League, and until recently there was no information to be had. but six months ago Mr. 11. L. Stimson, who was Secretary For Foreign Affairs under President* Hoover published a book, 'Tho h'nr Kesleni Crisis,' dealing with that subject, lie shows that on .January 7, 193 Z. by which time the .Japanese bad cleared'out, all the Chinese forces in Manchuria, be sent both Chirm and Japan a note declaring that tho United States would not recognise the conquest of Manchuria or any treaty or agreement brought about by means contrary to the Pact of Paris.' He says: 'Wo naturally looked to the Government of Croat Britain for a sympathetic understanding of tho position.' He had informed the British Ambassador of> what he was going to do, two days before.

Disappointed by Events "For 10 years previously Britain and U.S.A. had'co-operated to maintain the independence of China, what was called at first the 'Policy of the open door,' but. which had crystallized, in 1522. into the Nine-Power treaty, by which each of the nine Powers undertook to respect the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial 'and administrative integrity of China. In the light of these anticipations we were disappointed by what actually happened. "On January 11, the British Government issued "a statement to the press that as Japan had promised to 'welcome participation and cooperation in Man cbnrian enterprise, if did not consider it necessary to address any formal note to Japan.'' h\ other words as long us our trade to Manchuria was not affected we were not worrying about the annexation of a great Chinese, province. So the American attempt to co-operate with the League was snubbed and defeated. "A little later, on February 11, when the Japanese were evidently preparing lor a new and mote powerful attack on Shanghai, Mr. Stimsfon made another attempt, which'failed. R seemed misleading to blame our failure the 1 United States." commented Mr. Todd. The Case of Abyssinia "The facts were much the same in the ,-ise or Abyssinia. We blame our failure oil 'the Glided States. At Wishavy, on .lune. 21. 197.6. Mr. Stanley Baldwin emphasised thai, oil sanctions could not be enforced owing l : o .the eiioiiiious quantities coming from tho United States. Now that is most misleading. It J-> true that in June, 1936, the United

States were sending oil. and intended to keep on doing so, but in November and December, 1935, when the League seemed to be on the point of putting an embargo on oil. the American executive was most anxious to cooperate with the League, and proved ii by beeping several steps ahead of us. Again we have Booseveil's message: 'We seek to discourage Ihe use by belligerents of all or any American products calculated to facilitate the prosecution of war, in quantities over and above the normal exports to them in time of peace.' The. facts seem to be that Mr. Roosevelt's Administration, in its efforts to avxu'd frustrating the sanctions of the League, went far beyond its legal powers, and in every possible way brought, pressure to bear on the shippers of oil. "All this while, in Geneva the League marked time and delayed and evaded the question. In London and Paris the Iloaie-Laval plan was concocted, and alter that what could'Mr. Roosevelt do? His own people said to him: 'We've been double crossed again,' and the oiljshippers protested against any control of petrol from the Slates, while there was none anywhere else. Alter a careful study of'the files of the Herald and of the "Manchester Guardian Weekly, back to November. 1935. 1 am convinced that anyone who says that oil sanctions were blocked by flic United Stales is trading on our ignorance. It is the exact opposite of the truth.

U.S. Efforts to Co-operate with League "I'.olh in Manchuria and Abyssinia the U.S.A. marie the greatest efforts to co-operate with the League. They gave n lead at all the turning points, and we only supported them when our own interests were at stake. That is the key to British diplomacy For the last halfdozen years. We have no policy. We profess' adherence to collective security. and we declare that we support the League, luit in speaking for home consumption, 'with appalling frankness.' we admit thai our own interests are the oiil-.' cause we will light for. The Manchester Guardian reports Sir Thomas Inskip as saying: 'Defence of the interests of this country is the only standard to which this country and the Umpire is likelv to rally.' Mr. I'Men ami Mr. Neville Chamberlain have .-.aid much the same. Well, if that is the case we ought to withdraw from the League. "The covenant binds each one of us to I e ready to defend any of us against aggression.' We haven't done so. we don't intend to do so. and vol we talk of our lovalfv lo lb,' League. and blame it--, failure on France or Germany or the U.S.A.

"Since 1931 the British Government has not supported the League; it has crippled it. and now they ask for mil' cooperation in rearmament so that Ihev may he able to support collective security! If thev had supported collective security in Ihe past they would not be needing to rearm now. Can we trust them for the future? "In my opinion we have made our own interests our only rule. We have supported the League when it soiled lis and broken our promises when they were inconvenient. We have destroyed the League and made war inevilnoJe.