The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1935. KEEPING THE LEAGUE ALIVE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20217, 19 September 1935, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1935. KEEPING THE LEAGUE ALIVE.

No contribution to the discussion on the obligations imposed on the nations by existing pacts and treaties, will attract so much attention as the pronouncement of the national executive of the Labour Party of Great Britain. Defining Labour’s attitude to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, the Labour leaders insist that “because Britain, as a member of the League of Nations and a signatory to the Pact of Paris—otherwise the Briand-Kellogg Pact — has renounced war as an instrument of national policy, the citizens of Britain are no longer bound blindly to obey the Government if it summons them to war.” The report of the national executive which will be presented to the annual conference of the Labour Party this month, says: The Labour Movement will give a lead in deciding when the emergency arises, whether the Government should be supported or resisted. Therefore, the Government must be warned that the only way to keep the nation united on questions of peace or war, is to keep the League of Nations alive.

Much more helpful advice would have been furnished if the spokesmen of the Labour Party had declared its wholehearted support of the League of Nations. Manifestly, the great mass of the people in all enlightened countries are strongly in favour of keeping the League of Nations alive. But the leaders of the Labour movement in Britain have rather fallen short in the lead they insist should be given by them. Do they intend to convey the impression that they will endorse any action the Imperial Government may take to keep the League alive? Their attitude in relation to this phase of the question is somewhat uncertain. For instance, if members of the League of Nations and all signatories of the Pact of Paris have forfeited ail rights to call on their citizens to take up arms, because the pacts and treaties they have signed have outlawed war as an instrument of national policy, then how does Italy stand? Measured by the yardstick adopted by the British Labour leaders, Italy must be condemned as an outlaw among the nations because of the large preparations being made as a prelude to recourse to war? If then under the Pact of Paris, Italy has forfeited her rights to call on her citizens, she has also violated the solemn promises she made under the terms of the Pact of Paris and the Covenant of the League of Nations. Therefore, other members must invoke the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the terms of the Pact of Paris to counteract Italy’s breach of the Covenant, and discipline the offender. In other words, the members of the League of Nations must take action to keep the League alive, since it is tolerably certain that if the League fails to prevent bloodshed between powerfully armed Italy and weak Abyssinia—both members of the League and both bound by the Covenant —the League will sign its own death warrant. The Labour leaders in Britain have therefore to face up to the issue now confronting members of the League of Nations who are standing by the Covenant. If then the Assembly of the League of Nations were to decide to close the Suez Canal as a disciplinary measure and as a means to save the League from humiliation and subsequent collapse, would Labour support Britain in the part she would be called upon to play in saving the League? As a matter of fact, the members of the League of Nations could, under the very pacts and treaties cited by the national executive of the British Labour Party, close the Suez Canal against the activities of a treaty-beaking member. As one authority says:

Both the States to whom the Canal must be of vital moment are signatories of the Pact of Paris (BriandKellogg), and if one declares war in violation of that Pact she could not complain if the Protecting Power closed the Canal.

It may be true, as the Labour pronouncement insists, that citizens are relieved of certain obligations under the terms of the Pact of Paris, but it is equally true that definite obligations are imposed on all members of the League of Nations to defend any member of the League whose sovereignty and independence may be threatened by the warlike activities of another member. Thus, to save the League, all members have definite obligations imposed upon them which cannot he discharged or ignored—if the League is to live —as fancy pleases.