NEW ERA OPENS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 103, 4 May 1938, Page 7

NEW ERA OPENS

ANGLO-ITALL'uN AMITY MR. CHAMBERLAIN’S BELIEF DEBATE IN THE COMMONS ( British Official Wireless.T RUGBY, May 2. The Anglo-Italian agreement was debated in the House of Commons today on a motion proposed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, approving the results of the recent conversations in Rome. Mr. Chamberlain said he had been i encouraged by the agreement and the praise and congratulation it had evoked to hope that the first step had been taken towards a healthier and saner state of things in Europe. “I believe that for Italy and ourselves this agreement marks the beginning of a new era,” he said. “In former days we had close friendship with the old Italy: to-day there is a new Italy—an Italy which, under the stimulus of the personality of Signor Mussoliifi, is showing a new vigour in which there is apparent a new vision and a new efficiency in administration and in the measures which they are taking to improve the conditions of their people. With th£ laying aside of temporary differences by this agreement, I believe we may look forward to a friendship with the new Italy as firmly based as that by which we were bound to the old.’’ Assurance Regarding Palestine An important part of the Premier’s Speech disclosed the fact that in the course ot the Rome conversations, Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, gave the British Ambassador. Lord Perth, a full assurance regarding Palestine. After examining in detail the pro’o- 1 col ana its annexes. Mr. Chamberlain said he thought the House would agree that they dealt In a very careful and comprehensive manner with oossible sources of difficulty between Britain and Italy. In case anybody should think Palestine has been purposely left out, he said, I should like to mention that that subject was also discussed and that, as a result. Count Ciano has given Lord Perth oral assurances that Italy will abstain from creating difficulties or embarrassment for Britain in Palestine, and that Lord Perth has given similar assurances that Britain for its part intends to preserve and protect legitimate Italian interests in that country. We ourselves are perfectly satisfied with the oral declaration which we have received, and I am sure Italy is also perfectly' satisfied with the declaration we have given in return. General Policy Scheme Early in his speech, the Premier t>aid tributes to Lord Perth and Count Ciano on the manner in which the negotiations were handled, and to Count Grandi. Italian Ambassador in London, for his contributions to removing misunderstandings. He then described the place of the' agreement in the general scheme of the Government’s foreign policy, the! aim of which, he said, was to restore general confidence that peace could and would be maintained. Without that confidence, he proceeded, no progress was possible in international affairs. They could only obtain that confidence if they succeeded in removing grievances, differences, and suspicion which, if unchecked, might lead to war. It was not a task which could be accomplished in a moment or all at once, but if they could eliminate the danger spots one by one they might in time find themselves in a position to arrive at the goal. Nobody could doubt before the signing of the agreement that the relations between Italy and Britain and Italy and France constituted one of those danger spots. His Majesty’s Government believed that danger could be removed by the application of good will and common sense to problems which had arisen very largely, as they believed, out of want of trust and confidence. But to accomplish that it was necessary to face tacts, however unpalatable these facts might be, and he thought perhaps it was in the Government’s willingness to face realities and make the best of them that the difference lay between them and the Opposition. Effect Seen Already The agreement was designed to rover comprehensively the whole ground of relations between Britain and Italy in certain areas of the world, and it paved the way for future operation and understanding in those areas in which their interests were found to be parallel. The signing of the agreement. Mr. Chamberlain declared, amid Ministerial cheers, had already effected aradical change in relations between! the Italian and British Governments. The clouds of mistrust and suspicion had been cleared away and the two nations could now regard one another with determination to promote mutual friendship. The Prime Minister then turned to the question of agreements comin into force. “Full effect cannot be given to this agreement,’’ he said, “until we can regard the Spanish situation as settled and find ourselves in a position to acknowledge the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. As to Spain, there have been suspicions frequently expressed that Italy would refuse to withdraw her volunteers in accordance with the Non-Intervention Committee’s proposal and that she was desirous to obtain for herself some permanent position in Spain or in some Spanish overseas possession, and I therefore desire to call particular attention to Count Ciano’s letter, in which he gaie three specific assurances to the British Government. After reading the assurances to the Tlouse Mr. Chamberlain said: “I wish to state that His Majesty’s Government accepts them as being given in good faith and believes that the Italian Government intends to keep them in spirit as well as in letter.’’ The Labour Party tabled a motion declaring that Opposition approval cannot be given to “an agreement

made with a State which is actively engaged in wanton aggression in Spain.” Italy in Ethiopia This brought Mr. Chamberlain to the question of the recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. He said: “I would like to remind the House that other different States, members of the League whose loyalty to the League cannot be questioned, have taken a different view of this matter from that held by Britain. They have taken the view’ that the collective obligations in this matter were discharged on July 4, 1936, when the Assembly passed the resolution abolishing sanctions and their view was, therefore, that the States members were consequntly free to take whatever action seemed good to them in the light of their own situation and what they considered to be their obligations. That is a perfectly comprehensible view' and a number of powerful and convincing arguments can be brought in support of it. Chiefly, Britain does not desire to criticise any of the States that have taken that view, but as far as Britain is concerned it, in common with many others, held that this is not a question which concerns Britain alone but one which requires consideration by the appropriate organ of the League. The result of this difference of opinion is that some of those who took part in collective action have already recognised the Italian position in Ethiopia, while others have taken action which implies, or seems to imply, recognition. Others again have taken no action at all. It is a confused and anomalous position—a situation which requires clearing. “Britain has taken the first step towards clarification b>- asking M. Axcnol to place an item dealing with thi-. question on the agenda of the forthcoming Council, which Britain considers an appropriate offer. This action does not mean that we condone or approve the method by which Italy obtained control of Abyssinia. It does not mean that we are going to ask the League to modify any resolution or decision it took during the period of conflict. The League expressed its judgment on the whole affair in the plainest possible terms and there will be no going back on that. We do not intend to ask any other State to take any action which they might deem incompatible with their obligations. Neither the action we have taken nor any action we ask the Council to take, in itself constitutes recognition. The act of recognition remains within the sovereign rights of each individual State. In other words, as far as this country is concerned the time and circumstances of recognition remain in our own discretion. Justification for Recognition “I have always maintained that the only circumstance in which recognition could morally be justified would be if it were shown to be an essential feature of general appeasement. That is the position of the Government to-day We could not feel that we were taking an essential step to general appeasement unless, at the same time, we could see a Spanish settlement as a prerequisite of this instrument.” The Leader of the Opposition. Mr. C. R. Attlee, intervened to ask Mr. Chamberlain what he meatn by a Spanish settlement. Mr. Chamberlain replied: “I would prefer not to give a definition. Later on we shall get nearer the time when we can. I think we should be wrong in attempting at this stage to define the circumstances under which we should say a settlement had been arrived at.” When Mr. Attlee further pressed the Premier on the question the latter retorted: “I leave myself to the judgment of the House. I cannot tell the House when this protocol and its annexes will come into force, but no doubt the situation will clear itself up as time goes on.”