MILLIONS OF LIVES AT STAKE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19804, 21 May 1934, Page 9

MILLIONS OF LIVES AT STAKE

WAR FORECASTED BY MUSSOLINI BRITAIN ALONE CAN SAVE THE WORLD United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received May 21, 12.23 a.m.) LONDON, May 20. “The League of Nations is dying now. It is his majesty, the cannon, who will speak,” said Signor Mussolini in a statement to “The Sunday Chronicle.” “Perhaps Britain can still play the ;ard,” added II Duce, “using her power md prestige. The world is waiting, iherefore, because millions of lives and ;he destiny of Europe are at stake. The Disarmament Conference has finished, ind the rearmament conference has Degun.” IS WORLD DRIFTING INTO WAR? PRESS ATTACK BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY. (Received May 20, 6.30 p.m.) LONDON, May 19. “The News-Chronicle” says: “A study >f the speeches of Mr Baldwin and Sir (ohn Simon would show how British iiplomacy maintains its foreign relutation for hypocrisy, despite their ulsome professions of attachment to >eace. Europe has vainly awaited a dear lead from England, but failure is oreshadowed in pitiful bleatings by Sir John Simon and Mr Baldwin. Yet, ipparently, the initiative which these >eace-lovers could not be induced to ;ake on behalf of peace, will be taken nstantly when war is in prospect. ‘Sir John Simon’s cowardly repudia;ion of our responsibilities in China,” idds “The News-Chronicle,” “and his ilavish flattery of Japan completes the licture. The world is drifting to the ihambles of another 1914, because those ivho should have been the guardians >f peace, lack the courage of their convictions and sincerity to act upon ,hem.” “The Times” says: “The British Government has itself largely to thank tor the multitude of councillors and ;he municipality of the remedies of which Sir John Simon complained. It tias too often given the impression of uncertainty, just when Europe is seeking a lead. This criticism is particularly applicable to the Government's recent disarmament policy, which problem now rouses the greatest public uneasiness.” DEEP CONCERN IN BRITAIN. DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS. British Official Wireless RUGBY. May 18. Far Eastern affairs, disarmament, and the possibility of reforming the League of Nations were among subjects raised by speakers in the House of Commons debate on the motion for an adjournment of the Parliament until May 29. Labour Challenge. Sir Stafford Cripps (Labour M.P. for East Bristol sharply attacked Japanese expansion in China. He said once Japan had digested the North, she would be ready for a bit of South China, and Britain and the other European Powers would be forced out of the Far East altogether. Sir Roger Keyes said that Japan was destined to play a very great part in the East. He advised the Government to come to a good understanding with Japan. The best guarantee for world peace was a properly defended British Empire. Singapore was no more a menace to Japan than Portsmouth was to New York. Defence of Government. The Foreign Secretary (Sir John Simon) replying for the Government, characterised the debate as an expression of the deep concern which they all felt at the international situation, which was certainly difficult and might become threatening. He agreed that the present Covenant was capable of amendment, but it could only be altered if there was unanimity among the members of the Council, whereafter a majority in the Assembly was required. He took the view that if they were going to revise the League Covenant they wanted Germany in the League to help in the revision. To revise the League with Germany outside it, was a very doubtful expedient. He much doubted whether the question could be taken up while the Disarmament Conference was in progress. Turning to disarmament, Sir John Simon said that Britain was the one Great Power that first of all set the example by unilateral reduction of armaments, and which had produced a connected scheme, complete with figures. “I do not believe we ought to go to Geneva and start new conditions,” said Sir John Simon. “I think we should say we have tried to bring the British Draft Convention up-to-date, and we feel it necessary to know what other people think of it.” Certainly the British Government would play their full part in saving the world from such a serious calamity as a breakdown of the Conference, “but let us not take the foolish view that, supposing it happened, it means the end of the world. On the contrary, if that happened, we have got to start the very next day on a new effort, with renewed purpose.” Replying to specific questions, put by Sir Stafford Cripps, Sir John Simon

said: “The question is, does the Government still stand by the League of Nations’ report on the Far East,” the answer was: “Certainly.”

To a question: “Do we still stand by our obligations under the Nine Power Treaty, to respect the territorial integrity of China?” the answer was that we remained bound by that Treaty, as did the other signatories, and we should certainly do our best to observe it.” On a question whether Britain regarded herself as bound by Article 11. of the League Covenant, his answer was that the Government was bound by every article of the Covenant, and did not repudiate any article. Fate of Conference. * An important contribution to the debate was made by Mr Baldwin. He said the question had been asked: “what would happen if the Disarmament Conference broke down?” Do not let them assume that it would do so, but if for the time being it should break down, then do not let them lose heart. Let them remember that, after all, concentrated efforts after peace had seldom been made, if at all in the world until these post-war years, and it was difficult to break an ingrained human habit in one decade. It was, he said, for limitation that they had been working in the British Convention. Speaking for himself, he thought limitation the only practicable form of Disarmament in the air. “If you could get limitation, no single Power was in a position of such superiority that the temptation to attack became irresistible, but there was a corollary. If we did agree to limitation it was difficult to see how sanctions against anyone who broke that limitation, could be avoided. “The moment you are up against sanctions,” said Mr Baldwin, “you are up against war. In other words if you are going to adopt a sanction you must be prepared and ready for war. If you adopt that sanction without being ready, you are not an honest trustee of the nation. There is no doubt in my mind that if you are going to force collective guarantees, or collective sanctions, it means you have got to make this country a good deal stronger than she is to-day.” Defence In The Air. Mr Baldwin proceeded to say that he knew the anxiety felt in Britain with regard to the air, especially if the Disarmament Conference should fail, and no agreement for air limitation were reached. That anxiety had not been lessened by the events in Europe during the last few months. The House would remember the recent statement on behalf of the Government regarding this subject. That statement stood. He knew his friends hoped he would say when, and in what circumstances, the Government would make a more definite declaration. They could trust the Government, who were also anxious on that matter, but he would say one thing which would allay any decision to increase the Air Force: It could not be put into effect without months of detailed preparation. He would say that preliminary work was now being done, so that if their fears were realised, and it was necessary to implement the pledge he had given, not a single day would be lost in view of the general anxiety on the subject. It was right that the Government should take such a course, but he was also certain that there was no danger in the near future before Britain, and there might be less danger in future than they imagined.