FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 108, 8 May 1936, Page 7

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

DEBATE IN COMMONS LEAGUE MUST CONTINUE ATTACK ON SANCTIONS SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN’S VIEW LONDON, May 6. Speaking on foreign affairs in the House of Commons to-day, the Foreign See’etary, Mr. Anthony Eclpu. said that it was clear that the League must go on. They had to admit that League ae'.xon had neither prevented the outbrfk of the war nor arrest * I it once C. had begun. At most it had made the prosecution of the war inoie difficult and costly. The world and rhe League were accordingly faced with the formidable question: Could they anticipate in the future more vigorous action by the League than had proved possible in this dispute? Were the nations likely to undertake graver risks than they had been prepared to take hitherto-? Was it possible so to organise League action that it would be preventive rather than repressive? Those were some, but only some, of the questions to be faced. The difficulties were great, but the Government would approach them in the spirit of realism and constructive statesmanship. Mr. Eden declined to make a statement on the policy he would pursue at the meeting of the League Council. He claimed that it was not unreasonable that he should ask for the confidence of the House under the present conditions. Questions for Germany Turning to- the communication to be be addressed to the German Government regarding the peace proposals, about which Mr. Dalton had questioned him, the Foreign Secretary stated in the House of Commons that he hoped that it would be possible for the British Ambassador to deliver these questions in Berlin to-morrow. In reply to an interjection by Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. A. Eden said that while the Government was aware of some of the points regarding which other Governments were specially interested, the questions the British Government were putting would be communicated to the German Government on their sule authority and their own responsibility. The Government’s objective in these negotiations was the same as it had been from the beginning. They wanted to make of a period of crisis a period of opportunity. The unilateral denunciation of the Locarno Treaty had been a shock to- the structure of security in Europe. It was their task to rebuild it. Britain had already made a certain contribution, for which they had no need to apologise, and they proposed to go- on with the task, than which they believed there was none more urgent. In conclusion, Mr. Eden said that they should not blind themselves tothe perils of the present time. Active rearmament was taking place everywhere; in fact, some nations seemed to bo arming to the exclusion of almost every other need in their national economies. The British course should be to- pursue by every peaceful means the solution of the outstanding problems, to take every opportunity to promote international agreement, and at the s-ame time to carry through the rearmament which had now become an indispensable element in the solution of these difficulties, for whatever the future of the world, or of world organisation, Britain had a great part to play, which it could only do effectively in an armed world if it had the means at its disposal. Labour’s Criticism The debate ou foreign affairs was opened for the Labour Opposition by Air. Hugh IDalton, who charged the Government with the responsibility of having discredited the League of Nations and the whole idea of collective security, and betrayed the trust of the electors. This was not a narrow issue between defeated Aoyssinia and victorious Italy; it was an issue between the League of Nations as a whole and the declared aggressor State, which, aided by the overwhelming superiority of armaments and by breach of the 'Convention solemnly entered into not to use the most barbarous weapons which science had made possible, today had for the moment won in conditions of great inequality a notable victory. There was at this stage of affairs no justification whatever for recognising the victory of Italy by the removal of sanctions which had been imposed upon her by the judgment of the League, practically unanimously. In the Opposition’s judgment the economic and financial sanctions should continue. Sir A. Sinclair, for the Liberals, speaking after Mr. Eden, also claimed that the issue was not yet decided between the League and Italy. There was a deep sense of humiliation at the sufferings of Abyssinia at the hands of the aggressor, and it would be long before public opinion would forgive the Governments responsible for this humiliation, for the responsibility was not the British Government's alone. Sanctions a Danger Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the idea that Britain could play her part in the League or give reality to the League if it did not re-cognise that its contributions had to- be on scale of a Great Power was to live in a fool’s paradise. In his opinion it was plain that the threat of economic sanctions did not deter the Great Power which had deliberately decided upon an act of aggression. For that reason, lie said, in the early days of the ItaloEthiopian dispute he had counted the cost and prepared to go to all lengths with the others, even to the use of military force, but now the circumstances had wholly and profoundly changed. To ask at this moment for the continuance of sanctions was a policy of equal danger and futility. Regarding the future, Sir Austen said that enforcement of the rule of law which they had hoped to secure by action by the League had failed this time, but it was out of failure that one reaped success. A real effort should be made to get Germany and other countries back into the League. Consideration should be given as to whether the Covenant did not need amending in order to enable the Council or Assembly to act earlier and take decisions before a catastrophe occurred. He thought that the Government was right in trying to under-pin

. the League by a series of regional pacts and guarantees. The Foreign Secretary stated in reply to a House of Commons question tthat the conditions generally of the Emperor of Ethiopia’s stay in Pales- ' tine were under consideration by the Government. NO DIVISION TAKEN DISCUSSION IN LOBBIES LONDON, May 6. The foreign affairs debate ran out without a division. The sole discussion in the lobbies was Sir Austen Chamberlain’s opposition to the continuance of sanctions. The Times, in an editorial, says that clearly it is possible to anticipate the conclusions at Geneva which will be those of all the Governments represented on the Council. DISASTER TO BRITAIN MR. CHURCHILL’S VIEW. PRIME MINISTER CHIDED LONDON, May 6. In the House of Commons Mr. Win ston Churchill declared that Britain had encountered a great disaster to all her interest throughout the world. The Prime Minister ought to have spoken in the present debate, because he had the power. One could not have all the power without having all the responsibility. He had changed his Foreign Secretaries as he chose and taken every decision. This assumption of all power by one man and the failure to face realities in the House of Commons had already injured Britain’s affairs and must, if continued, produce demoralisation. I