RUSSIA AND THE LEAGUE

Southland Times, Issue 22997, 17 September 1936, Page 6

RUSSIA AND THE LEAGUE

Address By Mr C. A. Stewart PEACE-LOVING NATION i A full description of Russia’s association with the League of Nations, her gradual rise in the esteem of other nations, and her strength as a unit in the cause of-world peace was given by Mr C. A. Stewart, M.A., at a public meeting convened by the Invercargill branch of the League of Nations Union last evening. The Rev. C. J. Tocker presided over a good attendaiMr Stewart, who took as his subject, “Russia’s Position as a League Member,” was introduced by the chairman who briefly explained the objects of the League of Nations Union. At the conclusion of his address, Mr Stewart was asked several questions and a general discussion on League activities took place. “There seems a strange appropriateness in the date for our discussion of this topic,” Mr Stewart said. “It was on September 18, two years ago, that Russia joined the League of Nations; on September 14, 1935, M. Litvinov, the Russian chief delegate at Geneva, spoke strongly of the necessity for united action of the League members, in terms of the Covenant, to settle the Abyssinian trouble, and declared Russia’s intention of fulfilling all her obligations. In fact, Russia was one of the few nations, and the only great Power that showed real willingness to follow Britain at her boldest in the advocacy of strong sanctions against Italy. Since the collapse of sanctions, when reforms of the League and the Covenant have come in for discussion, it | was Litvinov who bluntly declared that it was not the Covenant that was at fault in the Italo-Abyssinian failure; it was the State members who had failed to use the arms provided by the Covenant. Yet the wording of the title of my address seems to suggest a doubt as to Russia’s fitness for membership of the League. At the present time it is rather questionable whether the record of any State member of the League is so unblemished that it can afford to disparage the genuineness and integrity of any other member.” Full Ideals Not Maintained. No State had quite lived up to the ideals and promises of the Covenant. If the moral right of Soviet Russia to be a League member was to be questioned, what could be said of the continued presence of Italy as a member after her cynical repudiations of her solemn undertakings? the speaker asked. In spite of their recent tearing up of covenants, it was probable that Germany and Japan would be welcomed back into the fold without too severe a penance, perhaps even without a direct confession of sin. It was, of course, a fact that many ardent democrats became “hot under the collar” at the thought of a communistic state being admitted to such a fundamentally democratic institution as the League. Yet democracy would hardly be applied as a test of eligibility for League membership. Italy, Turkey and Germany, to name only three outstanding cases, were acceptable members while definitely ruled by dictators. Turkey remained a member, and apparently a loyal and genuine member. Development of Policy.

To explain these seeming anomalies, Mr Stewart quoted from an article by the Rev. R. S. Lee, in which it was shown that Russia’s entry to the'League and to almost full co-operation with other nations was the result of an evolutionary development of policy and not of a sudden volte face. This progressive development had naturally resulted in a changed attitude on the part of other nations. Mr Stewart then traced at length the stages in the development of Russian Communism between the years 1917 and 1936. “Russia has justification for arming,” he continued. “Analysing this statement slightly, we must agree that Russia has genuine reasons for fearing aggression both from west and from east. The Nazi leaders of Germany have openly and repeatedly spoken ol their destiny as expansion to the east and south—to avail themselves of the mineral and agricultural resources of the Soviet lands. Hitler’s outbursts of the last few days have been brazenly aggressive and provocative. On the east Soviet Russia has had already ample proof of the expansionist designs of Japan. In Manchuria Japan has seized a large area that had, for a generation, been recognized as a Russian sphere of influence. The whole of the Siberian border from Lake Baikal to the Pacific coast is lined with Japanese forces which at times almost seem to desire occasion for an advance. “Soviet Russia naturally feels that her essential interests in Siberia and Mongolia are threatened by Japanese designs. In these circumstances Russia has much justification for increasing her military and air forces, and for concluding pacts with neighbours of whose intentions she feels more assured. At the same time we can realize that the building up of her forces to their present strength must have involved a very serious delay of her schemed industrialization. In other words, Russia’s vital interest is peace, and she can be credited with genuinely desiring that the League should actually function as an instrument to secure international peace.” Conserving National Interests. In considering the sincerity of the professions of League member States, it had to be remembered that, while an international outlook on the part of national governments might be looked for, the first function of the member States was to conserve national interests. They could not be reasonably expected to show loyalty to League principles unless those principles of peace, goodwill and international justice were consonant with what were considered the best interests of the individual nation. On the other hand, if peace, open dealing, and the reign of international law were plainly to the best interests of a nation, then loyal support of the League might fairly be expected. On those grounds Russia should be a good League member. An examination of her record during the past two years would confirm this expectation. “To sum up,” Mr Stewart concluded, “it may be said that Russia’s entry to the League was a natural outcome of the development of her political theory; that peace is in her best national interests for the sound further development of her system; that with the strongest air force and one of the strongest military forces she represents a very genuine accession of strength to the League system; and that she has shown a willingness to use her strength on the side of the League and otherwise to fulfil her obligations as a member.”