THE BRITISH EMPIRE

Evening Star, Issue 19660, 13 September 1927, Page 11

THE BRITISH EMPIRE

SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT LEAGUE ASSEMBLY MEETING SPEECH BY SIB AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN BRITAIN’S POLICY OUTLINED, Official News.) Press Association—By Wireless—Copyright. RUGBY, September 11. Sir Austen Chamberlain made a notable speech at the League of Nations Assembly yesterday. The British Foreign Minister made an uncompromising reply to critics of Great Britain’s policy in regard to security and disarmament. What was demanded, ho declared, meant the destruction of the British Empire. Ho said: “It would be idle to pretend that the failure of the recent three-Power conference on naval disarmament has not caused a certain disquiet and anxiety lest their failure to reach an agreement should bo a prelude only to a larger failure in the Preparatory Commission of the League. No one can regret more than my country does the failure to reach an agreement in tho Three-Power Conference, but even from the failure we may draw the hope that we may in time win success. We may iind encouragement from the fact that three great Powers that found themselves sustaining opposite and irreconcilable themes should have carried on tho discussion under the eye of the public, and when after all they were unable to agree, their cordial relations of amity and respect should remain unimpaired and their confidence in the peaceful intentions of each other receive no chock. But was not the failure of that conference a lesson for all?” Sir Austen referred to the fact that the Locarno Conference had been preceded by nine months of anxious and careful preparation, and yet those who took part, in it knew what difficulties had to be overcome before the treaties o fLocarno were signed. “ May it nob be,” he asked, “ that failure to agree in the Three-Power Conference came from the lack of preparation, from the failure to secure a sufficient basis of agreement before the conference mot, ami may we not draw from it a resolution to work patiently, even if we work slowly, and that it is not always by hurrying that the greatest or even tho quickest results arc achieved? ”

His country, declared Sir Austen, yielded to none other in its desire to sec real mid large restrictions in armaments. Its interest in disarmament lay not only in words and speeches, but in facts. “The British Army was reduced, immediately peace was secured, to less than pre-war level—to a strength which is only sufficient to discharge the great responsibilities which we carry on our shoulders in so many parts of the world. Our Navy cannot be compared with the Navy khich we maintained, I do not say during the war, but before tho war. Year by year the budgets for the armed forces of our country have grown less. I beg you to ask yourselves which of you carrying our load of responsibility of the peace of so many and such scattteml countries in such varied conditions would have done more? is there any country, 1 would oven ask. that would have done as much? Our interest is shown by the risks that wo have taken, and are taking, by the reductions which we have already made. Far bo it from mo to say that there is not a further contribution that we can. make to tho cause of disarmament and peace. Knowing all this, for tho sake of peace and to help to bring three nations together to give them the security which .makes their mutual agreements possible, we pledged’our word once more to do, in the case of aggression on those western for Germany, for France, or for Belgium, as the case may be, what we had pledged our word to do before and were called upon to keep.

“ You ask us to do more. Could not some of you do as much before pressing us to go further? Is there no other troubled frontier which those so anxious for this international action could take under their protection; to which they could give their guarantee as we have pledged ours on the western frontiers of Europe, and by so doing bring together two other nations at present regarding each other with mutual suspicion and fear? You say wc arc not doing enough, and you invite us to take for every country and for every frontier the guarantee which we have taken for one treaty. You are asking nothing less than the disruption of tho British Empire. 1 yield to no man in my devotion to this great League of Nations, but not even for this League of Nations will I destroy that smaller but older league of which ray own country was the birthplace, and of which it remains tho centre.” ARBITRATION.

Turning from disarmament to arbitration, the British Foreign Secretary said: “1 would beg you to bear in mind the special condition of tho British Empire. Ours is not a unitary system of government such as prevails in your countries. Wo arc a great community of free and equal nations, each autonomous, but united in tho oldest league, of peace in tho world. It is not easy for an Empire so constituted always to accept obligations that can be readily undertaken by a State speaking with tho one voice of but a single government. It is not easy, and would not bo right, to accept obligations unless wc not only have the. intention, but know that we have the (lower to fultil them. Yon think sometimes that wo are backward, and there is an undercurrent' of suggestion that because wo cannot participate in all the plans that are framed we arc stopping the progress of the League ami are obstacles in its way, I beg yon to think of what wc have done. 1 do not know whether we have signed’ moro treaties of arbitration than Italy or any other country or not, but I think wc have arbitrated more grave problems than any other country in tho world. Only the other day the Council of the League was occupied for no small time .with a decision as to what was to be tho frontier of Iraq. Wc have accepted tho Council of the League not as a conciliator, but as judges, ami we had bound ourselves in advance to accept and obey the decision of tho Council whatever it might be—for ns nr against. It was rendered in our favor, but what use did wo make of it? Did wo use it to say those arc- our rights? The Council of the League lias awarded them to us, and about them there can be no negotiations. No, that vorw award, given - , in our favor, we used to open negotiations with Turkey and make a concession to her that had not been required by the Council, and in ■that way make acceptable to her an award which, if rigidly enforced, she might have found difficult to regard with anything but dislike.” FUTURE OF THE LEAGUE. Sir, Austen said ho recognised the devotion of the majority of the League members to the “famous protocol,” and Monsieur Polilis, the Greek delegate, who had contributed largely to the formation of fho protocol, had told the Assembly that the work of the League would never be complete until tlie League had been made not what it was now—an assembly of Sovereign States meeting m council —but a superstate giving i rders to all the States, not only for the conduct of their external affairs, but as to how they must behave and what they must do within

their own boundaries and among thoir own people. “That way,” said Sir Austen, “danger lies. It is not so that 1 see the nature of the League. The judgment of the League is tho-judgment of the Highest tribunal t >j which, hero on earth, any nation can appeal to justify its action, and of whose approval any nation will have infinite need in the moment of trial and trouble. The British Government bases its whole policy upon the League, because no country, however powerful, even to-day, can disregard your moral judgment or be blind to the advantage of being able to come here, before you or your Council, to plead its cases, to receive your approval, and to justify itself before the world. Wo have accomplished much: we shall accomplish more. Work may bo accomplished in two ways, and from both er.ds a growing reconciliation between ancient enemies or former enemies makes the risk less and makes whatever guarantees you want easier to 'give. Is there not as much to be done on the path which Germany and Franca have chosen, of direct reconciliation, as by' any amendment of a. covenant or addition or protocol or heaping up of sanctions?” He valued more such declarations as those that had' been made in the Assembly by M. Briand and Dr Stresemann, solemn declarations of determination to pursue a peaceful course and eliminate war from the future relations of their countries. tthan all the sanctions which the League could apply to either if it broke its pledge. In conclusion Sir Austen said: “Perhaps we view tho future of the League a little differently, but our faith in it is the same. Our purpose is the same, though the way in which wc would roach our purpose varies with our circumstances, our temperaments, and our responsibilities. 1 look to no hasty and dramatic way; 1 look to no scries of sensational steps to make tho League what in time wc all hope that it is to he. ] think of tho League rather as an acorn that some man of goodwill and imagination planted less than ten years ago, and which is now a sturdy sapling. Though at no particular moment could wo mark its progress, I think of it as ever growing and expanding, until it becomes a mighty oak under which all the nations of tho world shall find their secure and constant shelter.” THE EMPIRE FIRST BRITISH PRESS OPINIONS. LONDON. September 12. The diplomatic correspondent of the ' B/dy Telegraph’ states Lliat Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech is regarded in foreign diplomatic quarters as a landmark in the evolution of post-war Britain. Uttered with tho full weight of authority of the Home Government and every dominion Government delegation, the speech said what none hitherto had the courage to say at Geneva—that the manhood of the Empire was not to bn indiscriminately mortgaged for the benefit of other frequently cpian'elsomc nations. Sir Austen disposed admirably of sloppy internationalism. As one of Britain’s most sagacious diplomats said, Britain has no desire to act cither as chief constable or chief dupe of the European Continent. The ‘Daily Express’ says that Sir Austen Chamberlain spoke as British Foreign Minister, and showed that the Empire must bo paramount, and Europe and the League secondary, though great efforts have been made to rcverte tho order of procedure. The 1 Daily News ’ describes the speech as singularly infelicitous. A linn molve not to support the protocol does not necessitate the putting of a wet blanket on the activities of the League. FREHCH CRITICISM BRITAIN'S NARROW POLICY. PARIS, September 12. Sir Austen Chamberlain's speech has aroused some criticism, the newspapers complaining of the so-called narrowness of Britain's policy. “ Pertinax,” writing in the ‘ Echo dc Paris,’ translated the tenor of the speech as; “May the League perish rather than the British Empire.” The ‘ Liberto ’ says that Britain regards tho League in the light of a limited liability company. The ‘ Ganlois ’ describes the speech as frank to the point of brutality^ * Le Matin’ states that the lonic ot the utterance is not comprehensible to the French mind. LABCR LEADER'S VIEWS “MOST UNFORTUNATE SPEECH.” LONDON, September 12. Air Ramsay MacDonald, interviewed by tlid ‘ Daily Herald.’ said that Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech was most .unfortunate and calculated to increa.se Groat Britain’s difficulties in Europe. During the last three years we had become more isolated through the Baldwin Government, both in trade and in international policy, giving the world to understand that the Empire was unable to adapt itself to modern'conditions. Nothing was morn awkward than the statement that thc_ protocol would disrupt the nation. Me should leave our enemies to say such things. We had gratuitously thrown away the postion in Europe.