BRITAIN & THE LEAGUE.

Wairarapa Age, 2 October 1935, Page 3

BRITAIN & THE LEAGUE.

COMMENT ON THE NOTE TO FRANCE. TRIBUTES TO SIB SAMUEL HOARE. EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF POLICY. RUGBY, September 30. The terms of the letter handed to the French Ambassador in reply to the inquiry made by the French Government about three weeks ago was closely in accord with anticipations. Attention is drawn in the Press to the special emphasis laid on the clear and decisive statement in the letter that Britain stands for, “full acceptance of the obligations of League membership, for collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression/’ and there ds general agreement that no clearer statement could be made by any member of the League in advance of any particular case. There is nothing in the British policy peculiar to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute. It is “concerned with the general principle of international conduct to which it will firmly hold so long as the League remains an effective body.” “The Times,” after paying a tribute to Sir Samuel Hoare for his notable public service in restating the British policy in such explicit and well-con-sidered terms, examines what should be the proper attitude of the nations of the League in the event of an outbreak of war. Their policy, it says, should be guided clearly by four main practical purposes. Firstly, their own solidarity, now stronger than ever, should on no account be impaired. Secondly, their action should be directed first and foremost to restricting the sphere of hostilities. The third purpose must be to bring hostilities to an end at the earliest possible moment. And the fourth is to see that settlement, when it comes, is as fair as can be made in the circumstances. “The Times” adds: “The considered views of the League on the Abyssinian problem are on record. The nations comprising the League will be in a strong position to refer to them if in the meantime they maintain their close cohesion, and it may well be that Italy, convinced at last that she is faced by disinterested hatred oTwar and not by some Imperialist or anti-Fascist motive, will realise that there are tangible disadvantages in the role of a bad neighbour.”

The “Daily Telegraph” remarks that there was no need of the Dace’s reassurance given in the Rome communique on Saturday that the Italian policy neither is nor will be aimed at infringing British rights in Abyssinia, for Britain had no apprehensions on that head. Such interests as she has there are well known and strictly limited in character, and it is not on account of these, but on wider international grounds, that she has framed her policy at Geneva. That policy is defined in the Note to France with all possible exactitude. In drawing attention to the passage in which Sir Samuel Hoare repeats that at Geneva he spoke of steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression, the “Telegraph” associates itself with the assertion that there is a world of difference between a negative act of failure to fulfil the terms of a treaty and some positive act of unprovoked aggression. 1 Another typical newspaper comment is that of the “Daily Herald,” which hopes Sir Samuel Hoare’s solid words will be carefully weighed in Italy, where, to judge by the Italian communique, the misunderstanding of the British policy, so complete as to be a dangerous illusion, still prevails. The “Herald” suspects, however, that the Italian appeal to Britain is designed for subtler ends. “It is meant to foster the impression that the dispute is purely an Anglo-Italian matter. But there can be no Anglo-Italian negotiations, and there are no neutrals. Signor Mussolini is challenging not Britain but the League of Nations, and from the League a collective answer will certainly come if the challenge is pressed. ”—t(British Official Wireless.) (The communique referred to stated that Italy was not going to leave the League until the League assumed full responsibility for measures against Italy. It added: “Italian policy has no immediate or remote, aims likely to injure British interests. On the contrary, Italy is ready to negotiate an agreement harmonising with legitimate interests in East Africa and will avoid action extending the Abyssinian conflict to Europe.’*)

OPPOSED VIEWS. SOME CRITICISM IN FRANCE. PARIS, September 30'. The semi-official Press is polite but unenthusiastic in comments upon Britain’s reply to the French questionnaire. “De Petit Parisien,” while regretting a certain lack of precision regarding the nature of sanctions, thinks that the Note will strengthen the feeling of security in Europe and that it is undeniable proof of the continuity of Franco-British co-operation. “ L’lntransigeant ” declares that the reservations in the reply inspire misgivings. Something more is needed to reassure France. GERMAN OPINION. M LAVAL FAILS TO OBTAIN SUPPORT. BERLIN, September 30. The f * Berliner Allgemeine Zeitung” says that M. Laval has failed, to obtain British support for his interpretation of Article 16 to be held for use against Germany, which for France remains Enemy No. 1. The newspaper concludes: “Britain is reconciled to Germany’s increased strength, hence the reference to the difference between unprovoked aggression and failure to fulfil treaty terms.”