LEOPOLD’S SPEECH

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 247, 19 October 1936, Page 7

LEOPOLD’S SPEECH

WRONG IMPRESSIONS AMBASSADOR EXPLAINS [British Official Wireless] RUGBY, Oct. 16. The terms of King Leopold’s speech to the Council of Ministers was officially brought to the notice of the Foreign Secretary, Mr Anthony Eden, last evening, when the Belgian Ambassador, Baron de Cartier de Marchienne, called at the Foreign Office to give explanations authorised by his Government. In the speech it was declared that Belgium must follow a policy exclusively Belgian, and the monarch proceeded: “We must aim resolutely at placing ourselves outside the conflicts of our neighbours. Those who doubt the possibilities of such a policy should consider the examples of Holland and Switzerland.” It is understood that the Ambassador assured Mr Eden that many of the interpretations placed on the speech abroad were based on misapprehensions, and in particular that Belgium had no intention of repudiating her obligations and particularly those arising out of the League Covenant: International Agreements. Newspapers here examine the speech calmly and sympathetically, and the declarations are considered in relation to the Belgian undertakings, not only under the League but under the Franco-Belgian defensive military agreement of 1920 and under Locarno and its subsequent agreement, including the temporary one reached after Germany broke the Treaty in March. This last agreement' bound the participants to observe their Locarno obligations and to engage in staff talks—an arrangement that was to last until the conclusion of new security pacts in the west or until failure of the effort of conciliation brought Britain’s letters of assurance to France and Belgium into force. The Times, which draws attention to the somewhat irregular procedure in making the declaration in view of the fact that there was an agreement between the Western Locarno signatories to abstain from unilateral pronouncements of such wide import during the present discussions, says: “It is plain that the revised conception of Belgium's future policy must be a matter of concern to Great Britain. Its bearing upon the negotiations for a new Locarno will be carefully and sympathetically considered, lit will certainly not influence public opinion in this country to believe that there should be any slackening of endeavour to bring about a fresh European understanding.” Dependent on Others. The Daily Telegraph says: “What ever her desires may be, Belgium can never rest her security wholly upon her own strength. Although the European guarantee of Belgium independence has never been abrogated, it has in fact been replaced by the more precise undertakings of Locarno and the League. The speech requires moreelucidation. We do not read it as conveying intention to dispense with pledges of security sought and given either recently or in the past. Her friends will have no cause for reproach if the purpose of the king is simply to rally all parties in Belgium to the need for greater sacrifice to avert the possibility of encroachment upon the integrity of Belgium.” The Morning Post says: “Most people will agree that in the new situation Belgium has consulted her own best interests by taking this line, for she is a small Power who has no direct concern in the rivalries and antipathies of the great. Her abstention leaves the military balance between France and Germany for all practical purposes where it was before. From the point of view of France in particular, Belgium is no less useful guarding her flanks as a neutral than assisting her as an ally, provided always that Belgium is strong enough to preserve her neutrality.” Only Hope of Real Pace. The News-Chronicle questions the practicability of a policy which envisages Belgium being entirely neutral. “No army that Belgium can possibly raise could suffice to prevent future invasion. The only hope of real peace for a country like Belgium, above ali | others, lies in the firm establishment lot a system of collective security.” i The" Manchester Guardian says that the proposed Belgian neutrality would not necessarily prevent a new western pact, for the other four Powers might agree to guarantee her neutrilty without asking for reciprocal guarantees as was the case before 1924. It would, however, prevent the suggested pact between France, Bri- : tain, and Belgium from coming into i force if the negotiations fail. France [ and Britain would then have to reach : a separate agreement between themI selves without relying on Belgian assistance or on the use of Belgian I ports, aerodromes, and frontier fortitications in wartime so long as her , neutrality is observed.