The Stratford Evening Post With which is Incorporated "THE EGMONT SETTLER" (Established 1890) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1936. "LEAVE IT TO BRITAIN."

Stratford Evening Post, Volume IV, Issue 159, 17 June 1936, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post With which is Incorporated "THE EGMONT SETTLER" (Established 1890) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1936. "LEAVE IT TO BRITAIN."

"Sanctions," which were u Mer folly from the start, have led to more disgraceful evasiveness, deceit and underhand diplomacy than any other international incident for many years. For this, France has been largely responsible. Britain, though Mr. Eden's policy was dangerous and foredoomed to failure, has acted consistently and in accord with the high ideals of the League of Nations. France has acted inconsistently and in accordance with her one ideal, the saving of her own skin. How to treat war-pre-ventive sanctions, after the sanctioned aggressor has won the war, would be in any case a difficult problem, but it is complicated intensely by the weakness, in foreign affairs, of France.

France's ambiguity in the matter 1 , of Abyssinian sanctions weakened both France and the League while M. Laval and M. Sarraut held the Premiership. The French General Elections were to cure ail that. So far they have not done so. Instead of M. Laval, v/fto rendered lip-service to sanctions and passive help to Italy, France now has at the helm the Socialist M. Blum, "a strict doctrinaire and internationalist," who is in theory a sanctionist, but who seems to be chained by anti-sanction influences around him. Frenchmen of the Right, anti-Communists, deem the Pact with the Soviets to be a pure matter of convenience; but M. Blum, and at any rate the more Leftward of his following, are suppose to love Russia for her own sake. Therefore, in consistency, they should accept the Pact and sanctions (which Russia strongly supported) not merely as a convenience, but as an enthusiasm. M. Blum showed his inclination when here-echoed M. Litvinoffs cry that "peace is one and indivisible." Yet M. Blum dare not, as internationalist and sincere friend of Russia, sound a clarion call for staunchness to the League and to sanctions. Apparently he dare not sound the retreat from sanctions either, for, according to the "Daily Telegraph's" diplomatic correspondent, M. Blum "is reluctant that the French Government should take in public the initiative, and he desires to limit himself to a promise of French support for British action." He sees that circumstances are stronger than consistency, but does not wish to parade his inconsistency if Britain will undertake to pull the sanctions chestnuts out of the fire. If the correspondent has gauged the situation with any accuracy at all, the French weakness has not been removed by substituting for a lip-server a chained sancticnist, but may have been increased. In fact, that conclusion is drawn in the following emphatic language, which is by no moans reassuring: M. Blum's Ministers are absorbed in domestic problems. So far a clear idea of their views on tli ; European peace and security has not been obtainable. Accordingly, London shares the views of Rome and Berlin, which are echoed in smaller capitals, that internal difficulties at present render France negligible in th;j European equation. This is greatly regretted in London .as it, is largely responsible for the stiffening of the German attitude. M. Blum can meet such an indictment by firmly sounding a note in foreign affairs that i 3 more consistent with his own personal standing as an internationalist and with the League's necessities, but there is no sign of such, though there is still opportunity. From the latest it appears that Britain is once more going to save France's face by taking the lead in the removal of sanctions.