BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Southland Times, Issue 23347, 3 November 1937, Page 5

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Vital Interests To Be Defended TRUCULENT DIPLOMACY NOT ACCEPTABLE (British Official Wireless) (Received November 2, 6 30 p.m.) RUGBY, November 1. Germany’s claim to her former colonies, the anti-piracy patrol in the Mediterranean, non-intervention in the Spanish civil war, the international aspect of the Sino-Japanese conflict and Britain’s attitude to tne League of Nations were discussed by the Foreign Secretary (Mr R. A. Eden) in the House of Commons today. Observing that the British, , while ready enough to discuss anyone s difficulties, would not be moved by truculence, the tendency to which he thought was on the increase—a method of “proclaiming a virtual ultimatum and calling it peace”—Mr Eden said: “Let me sum up the foundations of our foreign policy in the uncertain conditions of today. While we are determined, should the necessity arise, to defend our own vital interests and fulfil our own international obligations, we will embark on no actions which would be contrary to the text or spirit of the League Covenant or the Paris Pact. . “We believe in the principle of settlement' of disputes by peaceful means, and will do our utmost to secure general acceptance of the observance of that principle. While we recognize that the League is at present seriously handicapped by its incomplete membership we believe it still provides the best means for obtaining that result. We shall not be deaf to proposals for League reform, provided they are really calculated to strengthen international confidence and make the League more capable of fulfilling the aims of the Covenant. “It follows that we will join in no anti-communist, no anti-fascist bloc. It is the nations’ foreign policies—not their internal policies—which concern us. We offer our co-operation to all, but we accept dictation from none.” GERMANY’S FRIEND “The House will no doubt have observed that during recent days a country which has itself as an outcome of the Great War gained very considerable accessions of territory in Europe and also received certain territorial concessions in Africa from those countries which were her allies in the Great War, has now championed the claim of Germany to her African possessions,” said Mr Eden. “I do not desire to add anything at this moment about this claim so far as it concerns Germany and ourselves, but I must now declare plainly that we do 1 not admit the right of any government to call upon us for a contribution when there is no evidence to show that that government is prepared to make any contribution on its own part.” The statement was received with cheers. Replying to recent Opposition criticism, Mr Eden ridiculed the suggestion that the Government, by the vigour of its action in securing the Nyon arrangement against piracy in the Mediterranean and its failure to bring the Non-Intervention Committee to an effective decision, had shown greater concern for its own interests than for international law. The Nyon agreement was to protect freedom of commerce in the Mediterranean to all nations using it. Mr Eden reminded Mr Philip NoelBaker (Labour), who had complained of the withdrawal of the Spanish question from League procedure, that members of the League were divided on the question of the Spanish civil war. Mr Noel-Baker’s other complaint had been the League’s reference of the Sino-Japanese dispute to a conference under the aegis of the Nine-Power Treaty. AMERICAN CO-OPERATION Mr Eden observed that Mr Noel-Baker failed to appreciate the difference between'the position of the United States at Geneva and at Brussels. “Surely the difference is vital,” he said. “At Geneva in the Advisory Committee the United States representative is only present as an observer. Any act —whatever the character of the act—that can be taken in the Far Eastern dispute does essentially depend on the co-operation of the United States. I say without hesitation that in order to get the full co-opera-tion on an equal basis of the United States in an international conference I would travel not only from Geneva and Brussels but from Melbourne and Alaska—more particularly in the present state of the international situation.” Then Mr Noel-Baker had implied it was the result of British pressure that the conference should be held at Brussels.

“It is not always easy to lift the veil of diplomatic secrecy but in this case I feel we ought to make it plain that the initiative for holding the conference in Brussels did not come from us at all, but from the United States itself,” said Mr Eden. Answering Mr David Lloyd George’s argument that non-intervention had worked entirely in favour of the insurgents, Mr Eden remarked: “I think we must admit that one result, though not the aim, of the Nyon conference, has been to facilitate the arrival of very large quantities of material in the Spanish Government’s waters and that there have been enormous quantities of material arriving at Spanish Government ports throughout this year. “From January to September Russia shipped to Spain nearly 10 times by weight and four and a-half times by value as much as in the corresponding period of 1936. and the Russian Army publication contained accounts of the crushing superiority of the Republican air force in Spain, though it did not say from where its very modern machines have come.” MATERIAL FOR LOYALISTS Replying to an interjection by Mr Lloyd. George, Mr Eden said: “I am very reluctant to weigh the scales, but I think it is fair to say I could not stand at this box and tell the House there has been more material reaching the insurgent forces than the Government forces during this summer.” Mr Eden then reminded the House that refusal to grant belligerent rights to the sides in Spain had handicapped the side stronger at sea. In the opinion of many good observers the insurgents were paying a heavy price at sea for the assistance they were getting on land from foreign nationals, and those observers considered that the insurgents would be making a very good bargain if they allowed the foreigners to go and used the immense power that could be put into their hands by even a limited form of belligerent rights. It had not been proved by any means that the balance of advantage from non-intervention had been all on one side. Meantime non-intervention had

been an important contribution to peace by preventing the spread of war. Mr Eden declined to accept the view that a victory for the insurgents would necessarily result in a Spanish government hostile to or in active alliance with other Powers against Britain. Referring to the League, Mr Eden said he had to face the practical difficulty of the weakness of League membership today. He was not arguing about whose fault it was. Of seven .Great Powers only three were members. How could it possibly be said that “if only you put faith and confidence into it you would have the overwhelming force of the League behind you.” No one regretted that position more than he.

FORCE AS DETERRENT

“You will not have enduring peace until all nations accept and be bound—as we accept and be bound —by international law and until the force against any potential aggressor is overwhelming,” he said. In the closing words of his speech Mr Eden reverted to the conference at Brussels, for which he later left London. He cited one of the Opposition leaders who recently expressed a desire for co-operation with the United States and asked in effect if Britain could not “in this dangerous and difficult Far Eastern situation go as far as the United States—in full accord with her—not rushing in front but not being left behind.” “I wholly accept that definition as our guide,” Mr Eden declared. The Leader of the Labour Opposition (Major C. R. Attlee), winding up the debate, said: “We charge the Government with pursuing a course dangerous to the peace of the world and the security of this nation. We also charge the Government with failing to make changes necessary to the health and happiness of the people and the prosperity of the country. Mr Eden has spoken with unusual vigour, but he has given no foreign policy. Mr Eden conceded more than necessary to aggression by the dictators, yet it is clear that the Government has no policy dealing with the fundamental causes of war. The abolition of aerial warfare would be a first consideration; the fate of the Jean Weems is a vivid reminder of the danger to our shipping.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon), replying, said he did not believe that the Labour amendment represented in the least the general judgment of the people

The Labour amendment was defeated by 363 votes to 142.