The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1936. Sanctions—What Next?

Southland Times, Issue 22918, 17 June 1936, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro.” WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1936. Sanctions—What Next?

The meeting of the Council of the League of Nations which is set down for June 26 will be the most momentously important in its history. The League’s authority has been threatened several times 'in the last 10 years, but never before has its very existence been imperilled as it is imperilled now. Last October for the first time the League invoked Article 16 of the Covenant and called on its members to apply economic sanctions against Italy, a declared aggressor. But the imposition of sanctions failed and Mussolini is vaunting his triumph over the League as well as over Abyssinia. The immediate issue before the League Council is whether sanctions against Italy are to be tightened or abandoned. Each of these courses has powerful supporters. If sanctions are intensified the League powers must be prepared to face a war with Italy; they will antagonize Mussolini and be unable to depend on his aid to maintain the status quo in Austria which is regarded as the next European danger-zone. If sanctions are abandoned and Mussolini is allowed to proclaim his annexation of Ethiopia and his defiance of the League, the smaller nations of the world can no longer have any security from aggression. According to the Berliner Tageblatt the moral of Mussolini’s victory is that “whoever is ready to stake his existence has still to-day a great advantage even over someone much stronger than himself who is not ready to risk his life. It is a dangerous precept for Europe in its present condition. Mussolini’s victory encouraged Hitler to march into the Rhineland; it induced the Turks to end another treaty and fortify the Dardanelles; it prompted Austria to defy the Treaty of St. Germain and reinforce conscription; it plunged Europe into a ferment and accelerated the arms race. What more it may do there is no telling. Cable messages during the last few days have made it clear that the British Government is now prepared to take the lead in pressing for an abandonment of sanctions. Mr Neville Chamberlain, the unofficial Prime Minister, has described a continuance of sanctions as “midsummer madness”; and Mr Baldwin, the official Prime Minister, asked whether Mr Chamberlain’s words were “consistent with tradition and constitutional usage,” said merely “I make no complaint myself of what the right honourable gentleman has said.” His statement leaves no doubt that the ultraConservative majority in the British Cabinet has decided to discard sanctions and imperil what it not long ago described as “the cornerstone of British policy —the League of Nations. It is a step which will astonish and horrify the world — unless it is accompanied by proposals for the complete reform of the League and restoration of its authority. In defence of the British Government it may be said that the choice which the Cabinet has had to make has been desperately hard. “You may say we have betrayed the League, but would you be prepared to take the responsibility of committing the British nation to war?” —that no doubt expresses the Cabinet s attitude, it must disappoint millions of people who are striving for international peace, but for the realist it has considerable force. For there is no doubt that the risk of war in the event of a decision to intensify sanctions is greater today than it was last October. The risk lies not only between Britain and Italy but between Germany, the Little Entente, France and probably Russia. Yet if the British Government comes forward on June 26 prepared simply to jettison the League, the prospects of international security will be black indeed. A new effort .to reform the League clear of all its present embarrassments can be the only justification for an abandonment of the existing framework of collective security. If Britain destroys, she must rebuild more Soundly; to destroy what measure of collective security the world has achieved without any attempt to replace it with better machinery would be the end of all hope for all of us. It is above all vitally important that Britain should regain her leadership in international affairs. It is not enough for Britain to say, as Mr Baldwin has said over and over again, that she is prepared to play her part in any system of collective security. She must play the leading part, for hers is the greatest stake; and she must take risks and make sacrifices. As the Economist has said:

The British Empire cannot survive if the United Kingdom persists in the policy, laid down by Mr Baldwin’s Government, that we will not take the initiative in an international crisis. A heritage of greatness cannot be repudiated with impunity. For the English in 1936 “a craven fear of being great” means national suicide.