LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 January 1935, Page 6

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

INFLUENCE NOT DECLINING. ADDRESS BY DR. J. B. CONDLIFFE. Wellington, Jan. 18. Any impression that the League of Nations was a declining influence in the settlement of international disputes was removed to the satisfaction of a large audience in the Masonic Hall, Wellington, last night, by Dr. J. B. Condliffe, who during the last three years has been attached to the secretariat of the League at Geneva. Dr. Condliffe, speaking under the auspices of the New Zealand League of Nations Union, dealt comprehensively with the numerous functions of the League, political and economic, and received an appreciative hearing. Dr. R. M. Campbell presided. “The League of Nations,” said Dr. Condliffe, “is a method of co-operation and consultation whereby accredited representatives of the member Governments are brought together and provided, with a skilled secretariat and are encouraged to find solutions of their troubles. “The League is not a new form of government nor a super-state. It is not a repository of power for the exercise of authority like the government of an individual country. Its objects are conciliation and reconciliation by consultative effort round the table. It attempts to reach agreement where these are possible. When agreement on a particular problem is not practicable after all avenues are exploited, then its duty is to defer that problem pending opportunity and a more conciliatory attitude among the member governments for a solution.” DEPENDING ON PUBLIC OPINION. Success or failure of the League depended in the last resort upon what the people in-New Zealand and those in each country represented at Geneva were flunking. Without public opinion behind it the League could accomplish little on its own account. The pressure of such opinion as expressed in the council by individual delegates was a very real influence in the deliberations of the council. “Believe me,” continued the speaker, “you can feel the weight of public opinion in the council chamber. It is powerful there and vital.” When the delegates of one great power —Japan—walked out of the chamber, those delegates were branded by the feeling of the rest remaining within the chamber as outlaws. The end of the story had not yet been written. Public opinion, both inside the country concerned and outside it, might yet conclude the story with a different ending, and time would tell.

On the point whether the League was justified in employing coercive measures against a recalcitrant country, Dr. Condliffe said he was certain, as were all intimately associated with Geneva, that war must surely follow coercive action by the League for disciplinary purposes. “This is a serious question,” he proceeded. “Should the League be prepared to go to the length of war to discipline a nation transgressing the code set up by the League? Those who have to count the cost are not prepared, to go to the' length of war. That is the League’s present view and now that is likely to prevail. The time may come when coersion may have to be used, but the time is not yet.” BIRTH IN TROUBLOUS DAYS. Critics of the League were inclined to forget that it was born at a time when practically every country was giving out a flood of vituperative propaganda each one against its neighbour. The League was expected to bring about immediate co-operation and harmony in such an unfavourable atmosphere. Nations who had lately taken part in the Great 1 War had found cause for disappointment in the ultimate terms of the Versailles treaty. These terms were the immediate cause of certain nations failing to throw in their lot with the League, and of constant troubles in the succeeding years. It was therefore no mean triumph for the League that it had succeeded in getting the majority of the belligerents, together with the neutrals, to meet round the table at Geneva at all, and better still, that they had been persuaded to talk over their differences. This surely was a justification for the work put in by the originators of the League. CANNOT AFFORD WAR. A statement by an American that had profoundly impressed him, Dr. Condliffe continued, was that the true lesson of the depression was that the world could not afford another war. The originators of the League had had in mind the truth that the world was shrinking' with the speeding up of transport and communications. It was absolutely vital, therefore, for the nations to find ways and means by which they could live together as neighbours. As the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand had said that day in Christchurch, the fear of war was at the root of the worst manifestations of economic nationalism to-day. It was not the size of a member nation that contributed most to the influence of the League, but the uprightness of that nation. It was to the smaller nations that it owed most for the unification and universality of outlook of the League of Nations. Less and less was it in danger of being used by one Power or group of Powers against the rest. The battle for oneness of aspiration had been won by the little nations at Geneva. These were the keepers of the conscience of the League. For that reason he would wish to see New Zealand there more often. .

After detailing the varied occupations of the League in the field of economics Dr. Condliffe said it had been his melancholy duty to record the manner in which the economic system seemed to be breaking up in recent years. No one could say where the end would be until the nations came to sanity in their political and economic ■ policies. Exchanges were chaotic in Europe, whose present economic structure was tom asunder by political frontiers being made economic frontiers against natural law.

On the motion of Dr. J. Gibb, seconded by Mr. P. J. O'Regan, Dr. Condliffe was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.