PURGE AT GENEVA

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 138, 8 December 1938, Page 5

PURGE AT GENEVA

THE "HODEN AFFAIR"

OFFENCE TO THE BRITISH?

CONFLICT REVEALED

The "Hoden affair" has made the greatest stir in Geneva,; wrote the Geneva correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" on October 30. In the League Secretariat everybody is asking whose turn it will be next, for M. Avenol, the Secretary-General, has not concealed the fact that the case of M. Hoden, "Chef de Cabinet," is only the first of several that he is considering. , There is reason to believe that the "purge" which has been demanded by certain Governments will extend to about 50 or 60 officials, some of them holding high positions in the Secretariat.- It is universally recognised that, as was said in my message published on Friday, the political significance of "M. Hoden's dismissal is of vital importance. In fact, the whole future of the League of Nations is involved. The statement made in an agency telegram that the suppression of M. Hoden's post was merely a measure of budgetary economy is not in accordance with the facts. M. Avenol, to do him justice, has not made use of that pretext. He frankly based his decision on personal and political differences between himself and M. Hoden and on the allegation that M. Hoden's conduct had given offence to certain Governments and thereby done injury to the Secretariat. I understand that the British Government was particularly indicated. ECONOMY NOT THE GROUND. Moreover, the conditions in which M. Hoden was dismissed clearly show that M. Avenol's aim was not budgetary economy. M. Hoden was dismissed under a staff regulation which empowers the Secretary-General to cancel the contract of a member of the staff if his post is abolished or if there is a reorganisation of the Secretariat with a view to' the reduction of the staff. At present there is no such reorganisation in process, so M. Avenol, suppressed M. Hoden's post. An official whose contract is cancelled under this regulation must be given six months' notice and also one year's salary'when that notice expires, in addition to whatever pension he may be entitled to. M. Hoden received ten days' notice and six months' salary in lieu of notice, making eighteen months' salary in all. This procedure, which was quite correct, would hardly have been adopted if budgetary economy were the aim, apart from the fact that the suppression of a single post would be a trivial economy. A PERMISSIBLE COURSE. M. Hoden, of course, has a much smaller pension than he would have been entitled to had he remained in the Secretariat until he reached the age of sixty, as he had the right to do under his contract. He is at present just fifty. Everybody admits that the Secre-tary-General would have been quite justified in telling M. Hoden that, in his opinion, it was impossible for them to continue their close personal collaboration and had transferred M. Hoden to another post, at the same time suppressing the post of "Chef de Cabinet." There are actually vacant posts in the Secretariat. That would have been a much more effective budget economy, for it would have involved no additional expenditure, whereas the League is now pledged to pay M. Hoden the "present value" of his pension in a lump sum, as well as eighteen months' salary. When M. Hoden became in 1931 "Chef de Cabinet" to M. Avenol, who was then Deputy Secretary-General, he had been for ten years a member of the Information Section, and it was in that capacity that he won the respect and affection of the Press. Every journalist accredited to the League of Nations knows that M. Hoden has never given any information that was not strictly true. UNPUBLISHED IN FRANCE. A strange circumstance in connection with the affair is that nothing appears to have been said about it in the French Press to last night. Today's French papers have not yet reached Geneva. The Geneva correspondents of the Havas and radio agencies sent the news, but their messages were not published. The only possible conclusion seems to be that -the news was suppressed in France at the request of the Quai d'Orsay. For some time past, although there is no legal censorship in France, an effective censorship has been exercised in practice by Government pressure on the news agencies and the great majority of the newspapers. The action taken against M. Hoden is the climax of a Press campaign against him and certain other members of the Secretariat which began more than a year ago. On June 7, 1937, the Geneva correspodent of the official Italian Stefani Agency sent a telegram which appeared the same day in those Italian papers that publish an afternoon edition on Mondays. It accused M. Hoden and M. Vigier, aFrench member of the political section of the Secretariat, of having inspired a speech made by Senor Fabela, delegate of Mexico, at a meeting of the extraordinary Assembly on May 26, 1937, on the question of the credentials of the Abyssinian delegation. COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION. The Secretary General immediately appointed a committee, presided over by Mr. Lester, Deputy Secretary General, to hold an inquiry. The committee reported that the assertion of the Stefani Agency was entirely without foundation. Senor Fabela also wrote to the Secretary-General to the same effect. Since then M. Hoden has been the object of violent attacks in Fascist and pro-Fascist papers, notably in the I Paris weekly "Candide" and in a Fascist paper published in Geneva. One of the accusations made by M. Avenol against M. Hoden was that he belonged to a small group who introduced division into the Secretariat by carrying on a policy of their own in opposition to that of the SecretaryGeneral. M. Avenol admitted that the members of this group had a perfect right to their own convictions, but he alleged that they sometimes opposed their own opinion to those of the Government delegates. The opinions of the Government delegates differ considerably, and what M. Avenol really meant was that the members of the Secretariat belonging to this group were not always in agreement with their own Governments. LEAGUE LOYALTY FIRST. That, however, means that they put their loyalty to the League of Nations first, in accordance with the declaration that had to be made by all officials of the rank of director or above before the League Council in public session. This declaration runs as follows: — "I solemnly undertake to exercise in all loyalty, discretion, and conscience, the functions that have been entrusted to me as . . :of the League of Nations, to discharge my functions and to regulate my conduct with the

interests of the League alone in view, and not to seek or receive instructions from any Government or other authority external."

The division in the Secretariat unhappily exists, but it is between those who act in accordance with this declaration and those who. are merely agents of their respective Governments, from whom they take their instructions. The latter are so numerous that the Secretariat has ceased to be what it was at first —an international Civil Service. GERMANY'S INFLUENCE. The' countries most responsible for this regrettable change are Germany and Italy, especially Germany. It was after Germany entered the League in 1926 that the deterioration of the Secretariat became marked. The great majority of the German officials entirely lacked any international spirit and the German Government looked upon them as German officials bound to obey its orders. This was just as true of the German Government in the period 1926-33 as of the Nazi Government. The Italian Fascist officials were equally subservient to their Government, and the bad example of Germany and Italy was followed by some other countries. The small minority iof German and Italian officials loyal to the League remained in it when their Governments went out. There are still officials in the Sectariat who "seek or receive instructions" from Governments and other "authorities external." They belong to various nationalities. It might be thought that if there is to be a "purge" these are the officials that ought to go, not those who put their loyalty -to the League first, even when it brings them into conflict with their own Governments. That does not, however, appear to be the opinion of the Sec-retary-General. No doubt it is easier to deal with officials loyal to the League because they are not defended by their own Governments —on the contrary.