THE Wairarapa Age TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1936. REBUILDING THE LEAGUE.

Wairarapa Age, 19 May 1936, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1936. REBUILDING THE LEAGUE.

In the debate on the League of Nations in the House of Representatives on Friday, one member observed that the system of collective security so far hid been tried only very timidly. It would perhaps be nearer the fact to say that the system of collective security has not yet been tried at all. Three nations have in turn defied the League. They have been able to do so with impunity because the members of the League were not prepared to act unitedly against any one of them. No prospect ever appeared of the League being able to take united action against Japan on account of that country’s seizure of Chinese territory. Neither has there been any serious question of united action against Germany, presumably because it is widely recognised that the peace terms imposed on the Reich in 1919 were bound to be revised sooner or later. Even France allowed some of Germany’s treaty violations I —notably the reintroduction of conscription and the re-es-tablishment of an air force, to pass without any very pronounced protest. It is true that France is now demanding that the League ' Council should discuss Germany’s reported fortification of the Rhineland, but this fortification, if it is actually in progress, is only one of a series of acts in which Germany has flouted the peace terms imposed on her by the Allies in 1919. The unchecked Italian conquest of Abyssinia is another League failure, made possible primarily because France set friendship with Italy above duty to the League. These facts have their plain bearing on the possibility of salvaging or rebuilding the League on which a number of nations are now intent. Mr. Baldwin, in an address last week, said that it had become necessary to embody such changes as would make the League effective. He added:— Probably at the League Assembly in the autumn, League members will have to consider what, if any, changes are necessary in the League, and I hope any changes that may be found helpful in inducing those nations which are outside the League to come into it—if any such changes can be seen to be feasible —will be considered with all sincerity and with every desire to make the League at last what it was hoped it

would be at the beginning—a universal League. It must be apparent that if the next Assembly of the League is to do anything else than pronounce a series of funeral orations, the changes to which Mr. Baldwin referred rather guardedly may have to be somewhat drastic. Nothing is gained by ignoring the obstacles that stand in the way of making the League an effective organisation of its kind. In particular, it must be recognised that the League has been weakened almost as much by the limitI ed loyalty of some nations which are still its members as by the actions of those nations, inside and outside its membership, which have defied its authority. There will be no League worthy of the name so long as nations are prepared to put limited alliances or international understandings of any kind, above their obligations to the League. It has been said that the weight of public opinion in all countries favours peace and therefore supports the League. This probably is true of countries generally. It is certainly true of British countries. How far a popular desire for peace is likely to be effective in some countries, especially those under dictatorial rule, is, however, another question. Although they may be modified to some extent by wise measures of international adjustment, the difficulties of reconstituting the League on an effective basis are in the last degree formidable. In all parts of the British Empire it will no doubt be agreed, however, that every effort that is possible must be made to overcome these difficulties.