“War of Aggression”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 205, 18 November 1927, Page 9

“War of Aggression”

DEFINITION OF TERM Query in Parliament British Wireless—Press Assn.—Copyright RUGBY, Wednesday. THE Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Sir Austen Chamberlain, was asked in the House of Commons whetlief, in view of the fact that the British delegates to the eighth Assembly of the League of Nations voted for the Polish resolution, to the effect that a war of aggression was an intertiational crime, any definition of the term “war of aggression” was reached by the Assembly before this resolution was passed.

THE Minister replied that no definition was made by the Assembly. In subscribing to the Polish resolution none of the Powers undertook any fresh engagements as an undertaking not to wage wars of aggression was implicit in, and indeed was the very essence of the Covenant of the League. Sir Austen said it would be far more wise not to attempt to define a war of aggression, but to leave it to competent authorities to decide who was an aggressor when the facts were before them. In the House of Lords, Lord Cushendun, formerly Mr. Ronald McNeill, who has succeeded Viscount Cecil as Britain’s representative to the League of Nations, replied to the demand of Lord Parmoor for information about the Government’s policy on League questions. He said he was a wholehearted believer in, and supporter of, the League. The Government had not yet drafted any instructions for the guidance of its representatives at the next Geneva Conference. Matters were still under consideration. Regarding the reference by Lord Parmoor to the principles embodied in the Protocol of 1924, Lord Cushendun recalled the fact that the instrument in question was never signed. He denied that its principles had been uni-

versally accepted. The protocol offered to a large number of States what they were all anxious for, namely, a guarantee of British power, which involved a degree of risk and commitment which no British Government would accept. The present Government would not accept the terrible risk of replying to Lord Parmoor’s question as to whether it was prepared to adopt the optional clause of the International Court. Opinion in the Dominions was strong and emphatic against the acceptance of that clause. Its acceptance would mean the abolition of the hitherto accepted saving clause as to vital interests, honour and independence. Lord Cushendun said he doubted whether public opinion in Britain would tolerate laying down in advance that under no conceivable circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen, could any dispute arise which Britain would not be ready to submit to arbitration. Britain was distinguished from most countries by the enormous complexity of its Government system and by its material interests. He assured Lord Parmoor that the Government thoroughly accepted his view of the inseparability of security, arbitration and disarmament as a means of securing peace.—A. and N.Z.