BRITAIN’S POLICY UNCHANGED

Southland Times, Issue 23599, 29 August 1938, Page 7

BRITAIN’S POLICY UNCHANGED

Emphasis On Danger

Of Conflict WAR NOT REGARDED AS INEVITABLE (British Official Wireless) (Received August 28, 6.30 p.m.) RUGBY, August 27. A speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon) at the National Government demonstration at Lanark was almost entirely devoted to foreign affairs. At the end of a general exposition of the present Governments foreign policy Sir John Simon referred to the particular case of Czechoslovakia, which he said was very much in the public mind at the moment. Sir John recalled that Britain’s position had been fully and actually defined in the speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) in the House of ommons on March 24. (“Peace is the greatest interest of the Empire. That does not mean that nothing will make us fight,” said Mr Chamberlain in his declaration of British foreign policy in the House of Commons on March 24. “We are bound by certain treaty obligations which would entail upon us the neces-

city of fighting if the occasion arose, and I hope no one doubts that we should be prepared in such an event to fulfil those obligations,” added Mr Chamberlain. “We will fight in defence of British territories and communications vital to our national interests.”

“As far as Czechoslovakia is concerned it seems to us that now is the time for all the resources of diplomacy to be enlisted in the cause of peace,” said Mr Chamberlain. "We are glad to note and in no way under-rate Germany’s definite assurances. We have also observed with satisfaction the Czechs’ attempts to meet the reasonable wishes of the German minority.”]

“That Declaration holds good today,” added Sir John. “There is nothing to add or to vary in its content.” Sir John emphasized that a solution of the controversy in Czechoslovakia required contributions from all concerned. The Government had recognized that there was a real problem in Czechoslovakia needing urgently to be solved, but it was convinced that, given goodwill on all sides, a solution could be found which would be just to all legitimate interests. “There is no need to emphasize the importance of finding a peaceful solution, for in the modern world there are no limits to the reactions of war,”, said Sir John. “This very case of Czechoslovakia may be so critical for the future of Europe that it would be impossible to assume a limit to the disturbance which a conflict might involve, and everyone in every country who considers the consequences has to bear that in mind.” AMERICAN SYMPATHY They would all have read, Sir John said, a striking speech made the other day by the United States Secretary of State (Mr Cordell Hull) which laid emphasis on the widespread reactions of war and on the necessity for subsituating for the usezof force in international relations methods of friendly co-operation. What Mr Hull had said and what the President (Mr Franklin D. Roosevelt) said a few days later in Canada must have wakened a responsive echo in many British hearts. Referring to Viscount Runciman’s mission, Sir John said the good wishes of all the world which realized how much hung upon Lord Runciman’s success were with him in the task he had undertaken with such public spirit —going to Prague not as an arbitrator or a judge, but as a mediator and a friend. He was there in no sense as a representative of Britain but as a representative of all men everywhere who desired justice and who loved peace.

“I am convinced that all reasonable people of every nation must desire to assist rather than hamper his endeavours to bring the several elements of the Czechoslovakian problem to a just settlement,” Sir John added. “Meanwhile it is the duty not only of us but of all others—and all are concerned in world peace—to do nothing to imperil a satisfactory conclusion. And, as I have already said, we firmly believe that if the right spirit prevails a peaceful settlement, reconciling all interests and claims, and goodwill will be attained.” “POSITIVE POLICY” The Chancellor said the international sitution gave his Majesty’s Ministers little respite. He defined the general policy of the Government in foreign policy as a positive policy of peace. It had been a year of great anxiety and difficulty, and in nothing had Mi- Chamberlain’s leadership been more marked than in the resolute, positive efforts he and the Foreign Secretary (Viscount Halifax) had made to reduce tension and promote appeasement. Fox- his part, Sir John said, he would repudiate altogether the attitude which was tempted to say that war was inevitable. He would rather proclaim the view that if all nations alike would do their utmost to remove causes that might lead to war and would try to meet in a fail- spirit difficulties from whatever quarter they came, war was never inevitable. There were great countries in Europe with a system of government very different from the British, which no one of them brought up in the traditions of parliamentary democracy would accept for themselves, added Sir John. But that was no reason why they should conduct foreign policy as if friendship were impossible with these States of widely different political systems. < ATTITUDE TO LEAGUE Referring to the ideal of peace and the position of the League of Nations, the Minister said: “All the efforts of Britain have been directed to strengthening the foundations of peace and the adoption of argument and reason in the

settlement of international differences. For we are convinced that true solutions cannot be found by the use of violent measures. Apart from the loss, suffering and death which accompany such measures, their adoption in any good instance may easily have repercussions which might in certain circumstances involve others besides the parties at first concerned. Once this process has begun, who can say where it will end? “It was realization of this that led to the adoption of the ideals and principles forming the basis of the League, and it has been a matter of profound regret to Britain that the absence of a number of important nations has so gravely weakened the League. If, however, as an instrument it has been found on occasion not capable of bearing the strain imposed upon it, that does not mean we should abandon its principles. “I believe that just as the people of this country have a deep and abiding love of peace and a corresponding hatred of war, so have the people of all other nations. I believe that everywhere the man in the street desires to lead his life in an atmosphere of quietude and secxxrity, looking forwards to enjoyment for himself and his children of the good things of life and hating and dreading the awful consequences which modern war brings upon all alike.”

In his speech on March 24 Mr Chambe'--lain said:

"Before leaving this subject, while plainly stating this decision, I would observe this: "Where peace and war are concerned legal obligations are not alone involved, and if war broke out it would not likely be confined to those who have assumed such obligations. It would be quite Impossible to say where it might end and what government might become involved. The inexorable pressure of facts might well prove more powerful than formal pronouncements and in that event it would be well within the bounds of probability that other countries besides those which were parties to the original dispute would almost entirely be involved. This is especially true in the case of two countries like Britain and France, with long associations interwoven, devoted to the same ideals of democratic liberty and determined to uphold them.”