AIMS AND POLICY OF BRITAIN

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20667, 4 March 1937, Page 7

AIMS AND POLICY OF BRITAIN

FOREIGN POLICY OUTLINED VIGOROUS REARMING PROCEEDING SIGNIFICANT REFERENCE TO GERMANY British Official Wireless (Received March 3, 6.30 p.m.) RUGBY, March 2. A statement on foreign affairs was made by the Foreign Secretary (Mr Anthony Eden) during the course of a debate on the Foreign Office vote, in the House of Commons. The Foreign Secretary dealt first with Spain. He recalled that the British Government had taken initiative after initiative in favour of a non-interven-tion policy. It could justly claim that it was a right policy, ahd the Government would persist in it. The Foreign Secretary defended the League of Nations against those who described it as virtually dead. The solution of the Alexandretta dispute was a success which was owned in a large measure to the admirable work of the Council's rapporteur, the Swedish Foreign Minister (Mr R, J. Sandler). Information ot hand showed that local feeling in the Sanjafk warmly welcomed the settlement. ‘‘l am Sony that / can give no similar happy account of the progress of the negotiations for a new Western Agreement,” said Mr Fden. Now that the Spanish danger was less, they had to make another effort to achieve progress, and he did not despair of getting the nations concerned around the table on this issue. Challenge To Opposition Mr Eden analysed the position of Britain as he had defined it in a speech at Leamington in relation to foreign commitments, to the League Covenant and rearmament. He added his own to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent challenge to the Opposition to say specifically where they differed from his statement of British aims and policy. It was to prevent ambiguity or doubt that he had declared that British arms might, and, if the occasion arose, would be used in defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression, and In accordance with treaty obligations. If a new treaty could be negotiated a similar undertaking womd readily and willingly be extended towards Germany. Regarding the obligations under the Covenant, the Opposition complained, Mr Eden said, that he had been less definite. That was rot because his Majesty’s Government was seeking to deny its general Covenant obligations, but because as far as military action was concerned, the obligations of the Covenant were less far-teaching, less specific and less precise than the Locarno obligations. Had it been otherwise, there would have been ho need for Locarno. Covenant Obligations It might be argued, said Mr Eden, that the Covenant obligations should be as precise respecting military action as Locarno and that all the nations ought to undertake in advance to have recourse to military sanctions, but that was not the Covenant. Such a commitment would not only go beyond the Covenant, but beyond the abortive Geneva Protocol of 1924. Was it the view of the Opposition that they should go beyond the Protocol now when the League was relatively in a much weaker condition? Nothing could be more illogical than to stand for universal military commitments and not to be ready to provide the necessary armaments. Opposition Criticism The debate was initiated for the Opposition by Mr David Grenfell (Labour) who said the backbone of the League of Nations system had fallen apart, and they had lapsed into conditions of secret diplomacy and balance of Power politics which had been so generally denounced after the Great War, and so largely accepted as being responsible for that catastrophe. Great nations were arming against some danger which was never specified, and propaganda, the most dangerous and unparalleled in the history of the world, was rampant. Speaking of Europe Mr Grenfell skid: “All Germany’s neighbours are apprehensive about her and her alone.” He hoped the Foreign Secretary was speaking as plainly to the German Government as the circumstances warranted. She must be asked definitely did she want peace and what kind of peace. Did she stand for peace all round. No Time tor More Talk Intervening later in the debate Sir Austin Chamberlain (former Foreign Minister) suggested that they did not want a new conference or hev. agreements, but an undertaking to keep all agreements already made. He observed that Germany had complained of her difficulties about raw materials, but how had declined to attend meetings of the committee at Geneva, which was to investigate the whole question of access to raw materials. Britain’s Rearming Plans

The fact that Mr Anthony Eden devoted practically the whole of his speech to underlining his approval of the receht statements by Lord Halifax and Mr Neville Chamberlain, confirmed the Widespread belief that Britain’s foreign policy for a considerable time Will be restricted to rearming, without any diplomatic initiative abroad. His references to the divergence of the Empire views on the reform of the League of Nations foreshadow important discussions at the Imperial Conference in an attempt to evolve a common policy for the reform of the Covenant.

BRITAIN’S DEFENCE PLANS EXPLANATION BY CHANCELLOR OF EXCHEQUER British Official Wireless RUGBY, March 2. During the debate in the Itouse of Commons on the committee stage of

the Defence Loans Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to rhe criticisms of Mr F. W. PethwickLawrence, explained that the limit of £400,000,000, Which Was set upon the borrowing powers under the Bill, represented the amount which could be raised in cash, and not the hominal amount of the loans. He had hot suggested that it would be proper to borrow the whole of the non-recurreht expenditure, but what part of that expenditure which would have to be paid out of revenue, must be decided from time to time, in the light of other considerations.