BRITAIN’S STAND PRAISED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXL, Issue 20259, 7 November 1935, Page 4

BRITAIN’S STAND PRAISED

ITALO - ABYSSINIAN CRISIS

ITALIAN AGGRESSION DEPRECATED MR MILNER’S VIEWS “The symnathy of practically the whole world is with Abyssinia,” declared Mr F. Milner. C.M.G.. M.A.. in an address in the Theatre Royal last night on “The International Crisis and Its Reactions.” in the course of which he mentioned that unless Continental diplomacy could devise for him a graceful retreat which would sav„e his face. Mussolini must persist or be forever doomed.

Mr Milner said that the prestige of the League, never at the highest level owing to the abandonment by the United States at its inception, had of late years suffered through the defections of Germany and Japan and the abortive Disarmament Conference, America’s repudiation of the World Court, and the Abyssinian imbroglio. On the other hand the League should be credited with the Mosul solution, the Jugoslavian-Hungarian agreement, the international policing of the Saar during the plebiscite, the postponement of the Italian declaration of war against Abyssinia, and the adhesion of Russia to membership. Unfortunately, there had been two divergent interpretations of the League by France and Britain. The former power, whose one great obsession was security, regarded the League purely as a means of stereotyping for all time the iniquitous provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and of withholding parity from Germany for all time. Britain, on the other hand, had always regarded the League as the greatest effective agency for international co-operation and as an adumbration of a new world order. Then again, we had Lord Davies with the New Commonwealth Scheme insisting that the League must have force at its command in order to make good its decisions. Lord Davies postulates an international tribunal of equity and an international police force as Indispensable accessories for the proper functioning of the League. It was Britain’s official view that the League was not a super-na-tional body with power of military enforcement, but merely an agency for conciliation and arbitration and that in the ultimate emergency military sanctions can only be supplied voluntary by members. Recently General Smuts, in a statesmanlike delivery before the Royal International Institute, emphasised the necessity of the larger social and international justice and generosity. He quoted the Vereeniging Treaty in corroboration of his pleading. Of the great Powers of the world, four, viz., the British Empire, America, France, and Russia, were comparatively selfsufficient entities, with adequate raw materials and room for expansion. The others, then, Japan, Germany, and Italy, were severely handicapped, and their policies were conditioned by their national needs. First came the break of Japan from the League in 1931, and her repudiation of her international pacts, including the Covenant and Kellog Pact. Then we had the unilateral rearmament of Germany and Hitler’s repudiation of the League. Now comes the third defection, which had its special causative factors.

Mussolini and Militarism “Mussolini in his paper, ‘II Popolo d’ltalia,’ quotes the example of Japan as his chief justification. He claims that the League suits static Powers that are swollen with their gains and resources. Dynamic peoples must in a mood of forceful realism find a place in the sun by rejecting pusillanimous idealism and nebulous sentiment,” he said. Mussolini had never been a sincere advocate for the League. He had openly lauded war as a great agency whereby a nation developed its character and ideals and won the respect of the world. Italy was a poor nation financially. Moreover, she lacked oil, iron, coal and cotton and other raw materials. Her population increase, artificially stimulated, amounted to almost 500,000 a year. Consequently as a justification for colonial expansion he advanced this stark economic need. Again he quoted in extenuation the examples of all other imperialistic powers. He regarded himself as a Roman Imperator Redivivus, the embodied revival of the glories and prestige of ancient Rome, and by sedulous indoctrination, by the quasimilitary organisation of the Balila and Avantgardisti, he had bred a mass mentality among his volatile and mercurial people that accepted his gasconade as the words of an inspired prophet. As many as 100,000 military officers had been for years past training the juvenile Fascist organisations—Balilla (boys 7-14), and Avantgardisti (14-20). Another factor in the situation was the need of making good 13 years of irresponsible bombast and rhetorical promises. As French publicists with their divination of Latin psychology had pointed out, Mussolini had now gone too far with his mobilisation, despatch of troops and wild assertions to admit of a volte-face or a climb-down. Unless Continental diplomacy could devise for him a graceful retreat which would save his face, he must persist or be for ever doomed. It was a moot point, too, as to how far his extreme aggressiveness was dictated by internal disaffection, which, though subterranean, was increasingly making its presence felt. World Sympathy With Abyssinia “The sympathy of practically the whole world is with Abyssinia,” said Mr Milner. General Smuts had pointed out that if Mussolini precipitated a war among the nations there would be a pan-colourist movement which might fan the blacks of Asia and even the peoples of India to fanatical frenzy and revolution. Abyssinia was a member of the League, ironically enough admitted mainly on the advocacy of Italy. She had appealed to the League and was willing to abide by its decision. Mussolini, on the other hand, stultified the conciliation procedure, openly derided the prestige of the League and even after reference of the dispute to the Council persisted in his bellicose pronounciations and his despatch of troops. “Now this third challenge to the League’s status and efficiency will be fatal if not met,” continued Mr Milner. Britain realised that the only alternative to the maintenance of the Covenant was the relegation of the world to the chaos of individual competitive armaments with their inevitable breakdown in war. Consequently she was prepared to put her whole weight into the support of the League. This was manifested in several ways: (1) The solemn asseverations of the British Cabinet as voiced by Mr Baldwin, Sir Samuel Hoare, and Captain Eden; (2) the broadcast given by Captain ftden; (3) the sudden change in French policy

of nebulous laissez-faire to endorsement of British action; (4) unequivocal resolution to impose economic sanctions —and (5) the two great definitions of British policy given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. By the constitution of the League the prospective belligerents must abstain from war for at least three months from presentation of the report of the Council. If the report was unanimous, its verdict must be accepted. If either litigant refused to accept it and resort to agression, all members of the League, ipso facto, were required to cut off all intercourse with its nationals and to support one another collectively In severing all trade and financial relations and all commercial and social intercourse. Moreover, if this ostracism was ineffective, it was the duty of the Council to recommend to League members the amount of military, naval, or air forces which each should contribute to coerce the aggressor and conserve the covenants of the League.

Applications of Sanctions “These are the sanctions—economic and military—which are applicable in the present case,” explained Mr Milner. “The continued recalcitrancy of Mussolini will in Britain’s present mood bring these into operation. That is the undoubted Implication in recent official British utterances. Britain has now expressed her determination to act conditionally on the support of other members of the League as enjoined in Article 16 of the Covenant. It is anticipated in some quarters that if Mussolini persists in carrying out his ambitions by the arbitrament of the sword, that British naval power will be invoked to close the Suez Canal and the Straits of Gibraltar, and that even a blockade of Italian ports may be necessary.” Now it was the declared policy of the British Government, given at Glasgow last year by Mr Baldwin, not to use the Royal Navy in any blockade without the prior acquiescence of the United States of America. But from recent pronouncements by Ambassador Norman Davis, and ex-Secre-tary of State Stimson, it was evident that a blockade instituted at the request of the League by Britain would be respected, and that American neutral rights would not be insisted upon. International jurists seemed to be agreed that Article 20 of the Covenant superseded such sectional pacts as the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, which affirmed its future complete neutralisation and immunity.

We know now that resort to military sanctions would precipitate a war possibly involving many European powers. Britain would certainly not act in that direction unless assured of French cooperation and the collective support of the League. Owing to M. Laval’s commitments to Mussolini France was not prepared to go beyond economic sanctions. Although now 50 out of the 56 member nations of the League had endorsed the application of economic sanction, their enforcement was beset with difficulties and their effect would not be felt until the lapse of considerable time. Germany, Austria, and Hungary would certainly continue trade relationships with Italy and there was. no guarantee of American and Japanese cessation. One aspect that was gratifying is the solidarity of the Dominion on this matter. The whole Empire had with unanimity supported the system of collective security and the application of economic sanctions. Even de Valera had said “We have given our word. We will fulfil our obligations in letter and in spirit.” Revival of Triple Entente Mr Milner said that if Mussolini was blocked by military or naval forces there was undoubtedly a danger of his exploitation of Franco-German hostility by means of a rapprochement with Hitler and an Italian endorsement of Austrian amalgamation with Germany. This bogey of a revival of the Triple Entente and a Mittel Europa had been very disturbing to France, and certainly kept M. Laval on the fence for some time. “Mussolini must now have the mentality of a gambler,” he said. “The successful breaks of Japan and Germany evidently convinced him that the League was paper idealism. It is reported that he will not regard economic sanctions as a real casus belli. His terms are exorbitant and dogmatic, and are irreconcolable with the continuance of Abyssinia as an independent nation. But his present attitude and demands mean the annihilation of the whole system of collective security for the world. Britain’s firm stand in opposition to his military despotism is due to her realisation that catastrophic results must follow his success.” The Pacific movement in Britain as revealed by the Peace Ballot showed startling anti-militaristic consolidation. This demonstration had powerfully influenced the British Government. Britain’s endorsement of collective security was wholehearted. She realised that a new orientation of policy was needed to meet the moral demands of a new world order. British democracy right throughout the Empire realised that Mussolini’s intolerable aggression on a fellow member State of the League was a throw-back to the law of the jungle. It was especially since the Japanese aggressive coup in Manchuria as late as 1932 that this world conscience had been accentuated. Mussolini has staked the future of Italy on his belief that exploitation, selfishness, and acquisitive policies of the Powers would nullify combined action. Britain above all realised that the League must vindicate the moral law or otherwise civilisation was thrown back to the era of power diplomacy, competitive armaments, and anarchy. Whether Mussolini won his way or not, the world had now to face by collective machinery the whole question of these national economic inequalities which were the origin to-day of so much aggressive nationalism and consequental international unrest. It was a disturbing thought to realise that every day brought 3000 additional lives to maintain in Japan, over 1000 in Italy, and fully 500 in Germany. Certain nations, notably Japan, Germany and Italy, demanded freer access to raw materials as well as a guarantee of markets and opportunities for the emigration of their congested nationals. Some of the world's most influential publicists like Lord Lothian in England, General Smuts in South Africa, and Frank Simonds in America, had pointed out with relentless logic that the world was now confronted with far bigger issues than Abyssinia. Unless an amplified League was prepared to make a proper survey and deal with the economic explosive points of the world we should soon be confronted with catastrophe. Certain peoples felt pent up or ostracised. They were hungry for raw materials and for markets and desired fuller emigration facilities. Their very despair begot passive acceptance in authoritarianism and in ruthless dictatorships which endangered the world’s peace. “This question is the most vital before the world to-day,” he said. Lord Lugard, whose monumental record, as a colonial administrator in Africa made him our leading expert to-day, wrote trenchantly to “The London Times” on this matter. He pointed out that in any readjustments the welfare of the natives must be the determining factor and not the economic interests of European Powers. As far as emigration was concerned, British Tropical Africa was already open to all Europeans .without differential treatment, but France kept at least one-third of tropical Africa as a close preserve. As

a matter of fa:t raw materials were in surplus supply and cannot find purchasers. Lord Lugard was definitely against any dismemberment of the British Empire. Pooling colonies under League mandate was also criticised by him on the score of lack of trained administrative personnel. Lord Lugard shows 1 how difficult the problem was. and yet asserted the necessity of equal commercial opportunity for all races. It would be a fflicult task, and certainly need not connote in any way the territorial dismemberment of the British Empire, although It postulated compromise and sacrifice in other respects. "Again, this impasse reveals the terrible danger to t’'e world’s peace of irresponsible authoritarianism. Britain and America stand out increasingly as trustees for democratic institutions and for political liberty. On all sides we see despotism putting peoples in gags and blinkers, and by specious sublimation of the State rough-riding a herd mentality with narrow racial fetishes of bellicose cults or extravagant nationalistic ambitions. Surely the English-speaking peoples must strive to understand one another better, and pool their resources and credits in order to save the world from this invasion of irresponsible militarists,” concluded Mr Milner.