SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE.

Wairarapa Age, 1 October 1935, Page 5

SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE.

“I said—and I sincerely welcome this opportunity to repeat with full responsibility—that it is to the principles of the League and not to any particular manifestation thereof that the people of this country had demonstrated their adherence. Any other view would at once be an underestimate of British good faith and an imputation upon British sincerity. In conformity with its precise and explicit obligations I pointed out, and I re-emphasise, that the League stands, and this country stands with it, for collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety and particularly for steady and qglleqr tive resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. I would draw your Excellency's particular attention to this last sentence. I think it will be generally agreed that no member of the League could lay down its policy in advance of any particular case likely to bring that policy into consideration with greater clarity and decision than in those words. Your Excellency will observe that I spoke, as I am now writing, of all acts of unprovoked aggression. Each word in that sentence must have its full value.

“It is at once evident that the procedure under Article 16 of the Covenant, appropriate as regards a positive act of unprovoked aggression, is not made applicable as regards the negative act of failure to fulfil the terms of a treaty. Further, in the case of resort to force, it is clear that there may be degrees of culpability and degrees of aggression, andj that consequently in cases where Article 16 applies the nature of action appropriate to be taken under it may vary according to the circumstances of each particular case.

“Your Government, as I am aware, already recognises these distinctions. And similarly in regard to treaty obligations it is pertinent to recall that as I have already said at Geneva elasticity is part of security, and that every member of the League must recognise, as the Covenant itself recognises, that the world is not static. If it be suggested that this declaration of support for the principles of the Covenant embodied in my recent speech at Geneva and reaffirmed in the present note represents only the policy of his Majesty's present Government and not necessarily that of their successors in office, I may point out that while my Words at Geneva were in fact spoken on behalf of the present Government of this country, those words were also spoken with the overwhelming support and approval of the people of this country. 4 ‘ I stated at Geneva—and as has since become increasingly evident, the ; attitude of public opinion in the last \ few weeks has clearly demonstrated ■ the fact—that it is moved by no vari- . able and unreliable sentiment, but is i concerned with a general principle of i international conduct' to which it will i firmly hold so long as the League remains an effective body. His Majesty’s i Government believe that the organism ! which in the considered opinion of this nation represents the one and only real hope of avoiding the senseless disasters of the past and ensuring world peace by collective security in the future will not lightly render itself impotent by lack of faith in and refusal of effective action on behalf of its own ideal. But that faith and that action must, like security, be collective. The point is so vital that I must in conclusion once more quote my ’words at Geneva— 4 If the risks for peace are to be run, they must be run by all.' So long as the League preserves itself by its own example this Government and this nation will live up to its full principles."—(British Official Wireless.)

Plain Assurance Given By Great Britain. IN REPLY TO FRENCH INQUIRY FAITH IN COLLECTIVE SECURITY.

ONLY REAL HOPE OF AVOIDING WAR. BUGBY, September 28. The text of a letter signed by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, which was handed to the French Ambassador at the Foreign Office on September 26, is now published. Its terms are:— “In the inquiry you were so good as to address to Sir Robert Vansittart on September 10 your Excellency expressed the desire of your Government, in connection with the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, to learn to what extent they might be assured in future of the immediate and effective application by this country of all sanctions provided in Article 16 of the Covenant in the event of the violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and resort to force in Europe, and you referred in particular to the eventuality of jesort to force in Europe on the part of some European State, whether or not that State might be a member of the League. “I have the honour in reply to invite your attention to the words I used in my speech to the League Assembly on September 11. I then declared that his Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would be second to none in its intention to fulfil within the measure of its capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon it, and I added that the ideas embodied in the Covenant, and in particular the aspiration to establish the rule of law in international affairs, had appealed with growing force to the strain of idealism in British national character, and that they had indeed become part of national conscience. As your Excellency will also recollect, I further took the opportunity in the course of my speech to repudiate any suggestion that the attitude of his Majesty’s Government had been one of other than unwavering fidelity to the League and all that it stands for, and I draw attention to the fact that the recent response of public opinion in this country showed how completely the nation supported the Government in full acceptance of the obligations of League membership which was the oft-proelaimed keynote of their foreign policy. I added that to suggest or insinuate that this policy was for some reason peculiar to the Italo-Abyssinian conflict would be a complete misunderstanding. Nothing could in fact be further from the truth. (Continued on Page 3.) FRANCE SATISFIED. “NOTHING COULD BE MORE DEFINITE.” t PARIS, September 29. It is stated officially that the Government is completely satisfied with\ Sir Samuel Hoare’s Note regardin ’ Britain’s policy in the event of an act of aggression in Europe and adds that nothing could be more definite. VITAL RESERVATIONS. LONDON PRESS OPINIONS. BRITISH EMPIRE AS LEAGUE. (Received Monday, 8.45 p.m.) LONDON, September 29. The ' “News-Chronicle” interprets Sir Samuel Hoare’a Note a* plainly meaning that Britain ' will not be committed unconditionally to sanctions against Germany because France can prove that Germany has broken the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty. Britain also will noli be committedif Austria voluntarily coalesces with Germany. Moreover she would not be committed to military or naval action in disputable cases such as Memel, where the determination of the real aggressor might be .very difficult. The “Daily Mail” hopes the Note is a prelude to greater aloofness from Continental entanglements and the abandonment of sanctions. It adds that it would be a real gain if henceforth Britain made the British Empire our League, with London, instead of Ge4eva, as the headquarters for deterpiining policy. “The Times,” in a leader says: “Nobody who has followed the Empire ’s evolution can be under any illusion regarding its instincts for peace and justice. TTie Dominions are becoming more conscious ■ of danger in a World in which great nations do not possess such a voice as theirs for the choice between war and peace. The Dominion Parliamentary debates and their delegates’ attitude at Geneva have revealed a unanimity 1 previously in- 1 credible. It is also inconceivable that the Dominions or any class in Britain' will disagree regarding the necessityfor a revision of Imperial defences, although it is unnecessary to decry their inadequacy in the present situation. Rearmament does not involve a change in foreign policy, but at present; unhappily, there can be neither peace froth anxiety while, those countries which appreciate these’ blessings least are allowed to be the strongest.”" " c