HOPE AT GENEVA

Taranaki Daily News, 29 May 1933, Page 7

HOPE AT GENEVA

NEW AMERICAN ATTITUDE SECURITY FORMULA CHANGE CONSULTATIVE PACT PLAN MODERATION OF. GERMANS SIR JOHN SIMON HOPEFUL British Wireless. Rugby, May 26. Sir John Simon, Foreign Secretary, during a debate in the House of Commons on foreign affairs made an important statement, declaring that the United States peace declaration constituted a fundamental change of her position with regard to neutrality. The fundamental principle of her doctrine before 1914 was the obligation on neutral States to show complete impartiality between contesting Powers. At Geneva Mr. Norman Davis, United States representative, indicated that so far as America was concerned the law of neutrality was being modified and the United States was ready to contribute in other ways towards the organisation of peace. It was willing to consult with other States, in the event of peace being threatened, With a view to action. It was of first importance that the declaration should not be exaggerated or distorted by one hair’s breadth, z continued Sir John. The United States insisted that it must preserve its own independent judgment in connection with a dispute. There was no ground for complaint about that. But if in some future conflict the nations in consultation decided to take action to prevent sustenance or succour going to a wrongdoer, .Mr, Davis’ "declaration meant that the United States, if it agreed with the view of the States in consultation, would refrain from any action tending to defeat • the action that the consulting States might take. In other words, the old idea of standing with folded arms between the aggressor nation and an oppressed nation had gone. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this. ALTERATIONS NECESSARY. Sir John explained that in view of the declaration alterations in the security section of the Draft Convention became necessary, and he had prepared for a new draft providing that in the event of a breach or a threatened breach an invitation for an immediate consultation might be made by the League. They had reason to believe that the United States would be prepared to-enter into such consultation. They were happy to find that the United States proposed to associate herself with this, part of the treaty by a unilateral declaration, there being constitutional difficulties in doing so any other way. Sir John, while claiming that real progress had been made at Geneva, admitted that there were extremely disturbing storm signals about. He welcomed the statesmanlike and moderate tone of Herr Hitler’s declaration in the Reichstag and the withdrawal of the German amendments at Geneva, and declared that a good spirit was being displayed in the determination to discuss the British plan article by article. In the subsequent debate Mr. George Lansbury, leader of the Labour Party, questioned the efficacy of a new convention when, as in the case of Japan, the old ones were not being observed. Sir Austen Chamberlain regarded Sir John Simon’s speech as the most encouraging it had been in the power of any foreign secretary to make for many, years. He was not satisfied that it was practicable or desirable to design a formula to be applied in finding the aggressor in the case of a breach of the peace. It was not difficult to recognise an act of aggression, though it might be impossible to define the aggressor. While welcoming Herr Hitler’s speech, which if taken on its face value, as he would like to take it, was a happy omen for hopeful relations between Germany and the world, he was surprised that there had been no direct repudiation of the statements of some of the Chancellor's colleagues. He hoped that he could take the speech as a silent repudiation of Herr Nadolny’s re-armament threat

and the terrible speech of' Herr von Papen.

The recent developments of the Disarmament Conference were examined by Cabinet to-day, Sir John Simon, Foreign Secretary, attending. After a lengthy debate on naval disarmament the general committee at Geneva adopted the first reading of part two of the draft convention, the authors of 14 amendments agreeing to withdraw them pending private negotiations with the British representatives and reserving the right to reintroduce them at the second reading.

“ISOLATIONISTS’ VICTORY”

GENEVA POLICY QUALIFIED ARMS BILL IN THE SENATE ’ By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright Rec. 7 p.m. Washington, May 2A “Isolationists” in the Senate won an important victory against President Roosevelt’s foreign policy to-day when Administration partisans in the Foreign Relations Committee were forced to agree to a compromise on the Arms Embargo Bill, whereby the President would be given power to declare an embargo only against both belligerents in a case of international hostilities. According to Senator Johnson, who insisted bn limiting the President’s power by the adoption of the amendment, this "retains the status of neutrality of this nation.”

In the opinion of many Senators Mr. Norman Davis’ pronouncement at Geneva of America’s abandoning of neutrality has been “qualified if not nullified.”