NEW ZEALAND AND THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 201, 20 May 1921, Page 6

NEW ZEALAND AND THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

NEW INTERNATIONAL STATUS AND EMPIRE UNITY By H. DUNCAN HALL, M.A.. B. Litt. (Author of "The British Common wealth of Nations.”) i ' VI. NEW ZEALAND AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MEMBERSHIP MADE GOOD. In view of tho way in which New Zealand was committed to membership of tho League, and all that it involves, without any previous consultation or public discussion, it is. the special duty of Parliament to insist that the part played by her representatives in tho first meeting of tho Assembly, what they have committed her to, and the results of the meeting generally, should receive the fullest possible publicity, including tho production of all important documents. This is all the more necessary because a comparison of New Zealand! with Canadian and English, newspapers indicates that the Press reports give a very inadequate account of a number of most important aspects of the meeting. What, from the point of view of Australasia, are the outstanding features of this first meeting of the Assembly? We looked to it to throw light upon a number of points with regard to the nature of our membership in the League, and the effects of our membership upon our position in the British Commonwealth of Nations. There was first of all the question as to how the somewhat anomalous method; whereby the Dominions obtained full membership in this international association without bringing about the formal disruption of the British Empire, would s'tand tho test of tho first full meeting of the League. This arrangement has stood the test, the Assembly recognising that it corresponded to the facts of the,situation. A number of obscure points with regard to tho position of the British group in the Leaguesuch as, for Example, the question whether any defence arrangements entered into by the Dominions and the United Kingdom should be submitted' to the League for approval—still remains unsettled.

autonomy' demonstrated. But the surprising fact which emerges from this first meeting of the Assembly is that the Dominions not only made good their position, thus confirming their new international status, but actually assumed a position of leadership in the Assembly. Moreover, time after time they emphasised, by the independence with which their representatives spoke and acted, the fact that they were autonomous nations, and not dependencies of the United Kingdom. Yet the unanimous verdict of the British and Dominion representatives, when they gathered together at the conclusion of tho meetings of the Assembly to review the results, was that, independence of action and tplain speaking Und: strengthened rather than weakened the cohesion of the British group. At tho same time, tho impression remains that unless more care is taken in the future to thrash out beforehand the questions to be dealt with in the Assembly, and the policies to be pursued by the British peoples, tho cohesion of thesfe peoples may be seriously weakened.

UNNECESSARY DIVERGENCE. Two examples may be taken where failure to «o-operate is evident, and yet with a little forethought might, easily have been avoided. The first is with regard to the International High Court of Justice. By a lack of foresight, or an inability to appreciate tho situation, the ' British representative on the drafting committee failed to make any provision for representation of the Dominions upon the Court or their right to bring cases before the Court. It was therefore necessary for the Canadian delegates to insist upon the full recognition of these rights. (Was this step acceptable to the New Zealand representatives or did Canada act merely in her role as pace-maker for tho other Dominione?) The recognition of these rights opens up another possibility of divergence which it may be necessary to provide against, namely, the possibility that disputes between members of the British , peoples, instead of being eettled, as they ought to bo settled, amongst themselves, ' may in the absence of machinery for this purpose be brought, before the International Court. The League will have enough to do without being burdened with family disputes amongst the British peoples, and provision should be made for the setting up of some kind of arbitration mal'hinery in the British Commonwealth to settle disputes of this character. DIVERGENCE RESPECTING MANDATES. With regard io mandates, two divergent points of view have emerged. South Africa, has treated her mandate as coming direct to the Union from the "Principal Allied and Associated. Powers.” She has assumed that her Legislature is fully competent "to legislate in respect of territories beyond the limits of the Union” without any resort to Imperial authority; and that, in her dealings with tho Teague,’ in respect of her mandated territory she should deal directly, as a sovereign member of the League, with Geneva, nnd not through the medium of the British Government. New Zealand, on the other hand, regarded her mandate as coming to her. not directly, but through the British Government. She doubted her power to legislate for territories beyond the limits of tho Dominion, nnd decided to wcure these powers through tho British Government bv means of an Imperial Order-in-Council. Moreover, the New Zealand Government apparently holds that communications with the tenure in of mandates should pass through the British Government. So far n« wo mav gather, the Australian Government (which apparently never thinks it nrcwwrv to take tho public fully into its confidence on such matters) has decided to ndont the South African rather than the Now Zealand policy. Hero is a divergence which might lend to difficulties in the future, vet which might easily l>o avoided by adeonate discussion. There should ho no real difficulty in adopting a compromise along the lino’ suggested bv South Africa, whereby dealings with the League in ro«nect of mandated territories should bo discussed by the Governments in some sort of Imperial Conference before being submitted bv them directly to the League. New Zealand. If she so desired, could deal with the Teague In such matters through London instead of directly. A full statement with regard to her present practice is still lacking. BLOC OR FREE GROUP. , There remains the widest issue of all. What light does this meeting of Assembly throw upon the contention of the United States that tho British Umpire forms a bloc in the League which cannot be reconciled with the principles for which the League stands? The answer of the Dominions, particularly of Canada, to this contention was that the British Commonwealth did not form a bloc, but a group of kindred and autonomous States, a.nd that a grouping of this character was in full accordance with

the spirik of the League. The Assembly did much io establish the justice of this claim. The Dominion representatives showed that they had complete freedom of action in the Assembly. In fact, they brought into the somewhat stale atmosphere of European diplomacy which threatened to envelop the league a new vigour and a new world outlook. One of the outstanding incidents of the Assembly was the attack by the Canadian delegate. Air. Rowell, upon European diplomacy. BROTHERHOOD FLOWING TOWARDS OTHERS. > Tho attitude of Canada and the other British Dominions in the Assembly made a great impression upon the NewWorld. Canada practically assumed the leadership of the small nations in the Assembly, and one of the most interesting episodes was the tribute paid to her leadership by the representatives of all the South American republics at a luncheon held by them in honour of the Canadian delegates. Tho comments of loading (American newspapers on the part played by the Dominions shows that America is beginning to understand that the British Commonwealth is not. a bloc, but a free, grouping of independent peoples oT the kind towards which many of her own leaders are leaning. Witness, for example, tho recent plea made by President Harding that "the Englishspeaking people should draw more closely together for the carrying-out of common duties in the world, not so much for the exclusion from brotherhood of others, but for a better brotherhood flowing towards others.” No better words than these could be found to express tho ideal which the British peoples, in company, it mar bo hoped with the United States, should set before themselves as tho guiding principle of their group action in the League of Nations.