ROCKY ROAD FROM GENEVA

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20887, 19 August 1939, Page 15 (Supplement)

ROCKY ROAD FROM GENEVA

THE RETREAT FROM COLLECTIVE SECURITY

(Mr Arthur Henderson, Labour M.P.)

IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK to expound with confidence British foreign policy against the background of the tragic developments that have overtaken the. world, and especially Europe, in recent years. The task is more difficult still for a Labour Member of Parliament, because during those years profound differences have manifested themselves in foreign policy between the British Government and the Labour Party, which constitutes the official opposition in Parliament. What might be termed Britain’s official foreign policy since the end of the World War was based on principles of the collective maintenance of peace through the League of Nations. It was a policy that was broadly founded upon the Covenant of the League and it was directed to the establishment of an international regime of political security, economic equality, and social justice, to the elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, to removing the menace of arms competition by a general treaty for drastic all-round disarmament, and to the collective safeguarding of peace and security against unprovoked aggression. These were the major aims of a foreign policy which, because of the overwhelming and sustained public support there was for it in Britain, could properly be termed the policy of the Britisn people. It was a policy aiming at International Rule of Law and Equity. In a few short years that policy has been violently challenged in three continents and to-day is engaged in a struggle not merely for supremacy but for its very existence. Beginning with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in February, 1932, and followed by successive attacks that reached their high point of international criminality in the brutal suppression and annexation of Czechoslovakia, the fundamentals of our modern civilisation have been gravely imperilled. There can no longer be room for doubt in the mind of any intelligent man or woman that the world is now confronting a major crisis in human history. Powerful governments repudiate their treaty obligations, exhibit cynical and boastful disregard for the rule of international law, and demonstrate in their daily practices preference for the rule of force. In short, the rule of law is being superseded by the lawlessness of the jungle. . Signor Mussolini recently declared, to the thundering applause of his blackshirts, that “perpetual peace can only be a catastrophe for the human race.” Last September Herr Hitler struck his “mighty” blow against the democratic republic, Czecho-Slovakia, for what he called the right of “self-determination” of the Sudeten Germans. Yet it was a fact of the highest significance that neither from the people of Austria earlier, nor from those of Sudetenland later, but only from Herr Hitler himself came the demand for the incorporation in the Third Reich, nor was any idea of a plebiscite tolerated until after the arrival of the Gestapo and the German armed forces. For the suppression of Czecho-Slovakian independence and the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia, the right of self-deter-mination was an inappropriate excuse, since of 7,500,000 inhabitants only 200,000 were Germans. So an Infamous Transaction was Carried Through in the name of “self-preservation,” and a democratic community of 7,000,000 Czechs enslaved in order to preserve the security of 80,000,000 Germans. Here was a case of naked aggression without even the faintest semblance of plausible justification. No longer was it possible for Herr Hitler to pretend that he was “merely fulfilling the age-long destiny of the German people.” In September he assured the world that he did not want any Czechs in the Reich. Now a proud, selfreliant and free people have been forcibly brought under the iron heel of a foreign dictatorship whose political ideas, practices, and system arc the extreme antithesis of all they themselves had built up on a basis of national freedom and independence. By an outrage as monstrous as any recorded in the annals of history, Herr Hitler, by a single stroke, disclosed that no reliance could be placed upon his own assurance, and that nothing would be allowed to stand between him and the realisation of his ambition for power and domination. And if the Czechs were not safe, who could be safe? If one pledge were broken, would any pledge be. honoured ? How long shall such evil practices prevail and such dark sentiments endure? Here is no conflict between rival imperialisms. It is a conflict of fundamentals; a conflict between irreconcilable conceptions of ordering of human affairs; a conflict between law and brutal force, between good and evil, between justice and injustice, between humanity and inhuamnity. The world is being set at defiance. Event has followed event, each more outrageous than its predecessor, provoking horror in the heart, and indignation in the conscience of the civilised world, and reducing almost to extinction that feeling of confidence and security which is the essential condition of international association and peaceful co-operation. For this Tragic Transformation of the World Situation, the British Government cannot escape a share of responsibility. In the general election of 1935 it was returned to power on the pledge that it would make the League of Nations a cornerstone of British foreign policy. On this issue, as I have already stated, the British public opinion was practically unanimous. But each successive untoward development produced a weakening of the moral faith of the Government in a policy of collective security, and each

manifestation of weakness or hesitation of the League Powers merely served to encourage dictatorships, whose god was domination and whose instrument was force. Failure to face up squarely to Signor Mussolini’s war of conquest against another member State of the League of Nations gave impetus to the drift aw’ay from the policy of collective security which had set in with Japan’s imperialistic enterprises against China, another League member. Nothing is more regrettable than that Prime Minister Chamberlain fell considerably short of the foresight he displayed on October 14, 1935, in a speech referring to the League Assembly’s decision to adopt collective sanctions against Italy because of her unprovoked aggression against Ethiopia, in which occurred these words: “If the League,” he said, “were to abdicate its functions under the Covenant, every weak nation would first begin to arm, then to seek alliance with a stronger neighbour, and before long the peace of Europe would be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest Powers in Europe.” Failure to operate sanctions effectively, to impose a sanction on oil which it is now generally admitted would have seriously crippled Signor Mussolini’s efforts to bring Ethiopia under his domination, reduced the League to impotence and brought the policy of collective effort for peace into disrepute. The virtual dismissal of Mr Eden was, in effect, another victory for the dictators. The Ber-lin-Rome-Tokio axis was in reality a partnership in aggression, and the designs of the aggressors involved Europe, Africa, and Asia. Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia was speedily followed by Herr Hitler’s seizure of Austria. Two dictators, with Signor Mussolini operating for once as senior partner, have ensured the Fascist victory in Spain and the defeat of Spanish Republican defenders of democracy. The spoliation and annexation of the Czech Republic has been followed by the seizure of Memel. The attempted economic subjugation of Rumania has failed for the moment. Now Poland is the object of Herr Hitler’s Blandishments and Threats. Such is the pass to which Europe has been brought that the question that s being asked in all parts of the world is: “ Who next? ” Bitter experience is a hard school. After years of drifting away from the policy of collective security, there appears to-day to be a general recognition of the fact that the only method of ensuring peace and calling a halt to unprovoked aggression lies through a system that should never have been discarded. This recognition comes tragically late, but not too late to bring relief to an anxious world. The British Government has played a prominent part in the retreat from the League and collective security. It has displayed an almost incredible faith and hope in Herr Hitler’s promises. But events have shattered any remaining faith of the world in a policy of “appeasement.” That depended for its advancement and fulfilment on Herr Hitler’s pledges. The only thing that can be adduced to extenuate the pursuit of this policy of dangerous illusion is that the grave risks that have been run are but a further proof, if further proof were needed, that the British people are not animated by any Nationalist’s or Imperialist’s designs against German; . The policy advocated by the British Labour Party throughout these critical years has been clear, unambitious. In its declaration of international policy and defence the Labour Party declared that British policy should be twofold: “On the one hand we should invite the Powers which entertain grievances to state their case and should offer, through the League, not only to those three potential aggressors (Germany, Italy, and Japan), but to all nations, a new system of political security and economic opportunity which will banish from international relations both fear of war and all legitimate economic grievances. This new system, however, must form part of a general settlement which will relax the present tension and hold out prospects of an enduring peace. On the other hand, we must, through the League, confront aggressors with an emphatic superiority of of force.” That is the policy which the British Government appears now to be seeking to implement. An alliance of democratic and peaceful nations for the purpose of defending peace, by collective effort based on mutual assistance, to resist any further unprovoked aggression by Germany, has become an indispensable implement for the appeasement of Europe. The declaration by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons last March, that in fhe event of a German attack on Poland Great Britain will give Poland all the support in its power, and that similar support would be given by the French Government, will meet with the approval of all sections of public opinion in England. It is the first step in the establishment of that wider system of collective security in place of lawless aggression. All sections of British opinion are united to-day in recognition of the need for Collectively Resisting Lawless Aggression and for defending the international rule of law. The architect of that unity is Herr Hitler, his defiance of the rule of law, and his attempt to elevate force as rule unto itself. The British people are prepared to make their contribution to ensure the security of the fundamental basis of civilisation—peace, freedom, and democracy, in a system of equality of opportunity and mutual security. But, in the light of grievous experiences which have afflicted large sections of mankind, we shall hold more firmly than ever to our faith in democracy and we will never surrender our liberties.