POLICY TOWARDS LEAGUE

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20482, 7 December 1934, Page 7

POLICY TOWARDS LEAGUE

Collective Peace System Impracticable? LONDON, December 5. In the House of Lords, Lord Cecil inquired if Mr Stanley Baldwin had been correctly reported as saying that the collective peace system was impracticable in view of the fact that the United States, Germany and Japan did not belong to the League of Nations. Was it the Government’s policy, he asked, to abandon that part of the League system contained in Article 16 and revert to the pre-war international system ? He did not see why Mr Baldwin attached so much importance to the actions of the three named nations. Great Britain’s obligation under the Covenant was clear and complete. Unless they were to have collective action a grave and grievous blow would be struck at the whole structure of the League and any hope of advancing the cause of peace. It was both their interest and their duty to maintain qollective action, as reversion to the pre-war s} r stem sooner or later must result in another catastrophic war. Lord Cecil complained of unfair and unjust attacks on the League of Nations Union’s questionnaire submitted to citizens on peace issues. Lord Stanhope, replying, said that the Government had in nowise changed the British policy towards the League. Far from Mr Baldwin suggesting abolition of the collective peace system, his whole speech showed that the Government intended to support it to its utmost ability. The collective system which Mr Baldwin had pronounced as at present impracticable was the use ot armed force by the League. “Neither isolation nor interference but influence” was the Government’s policy.