International Peace Discussions

Evening Star, Issue 19804, 1 March 1928, Page 4

International Peace Discussions

Soviet Intrigue in India

Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. GENEVA. February 2f). Au outburst by, the Argentine delegate, Senor Cantilo, on the Monroe Doctrine was a feature of the resumed security debate, which Lord Cushenduu described as the main effort of the measure. Ho said that the Jugo-blav-iau representative, Dr Markovitch, argued that it was because the covenant was too vague that States turned their eyes to security pacts. They must arrive at some formula by which the effect of the articles of the covenant in relation to security could be measured or determined. Lord Cushendun deprecated overloading the Drafting Committee, and said that Dr Markovitch wanted something he simply could not have. The Chilian representative, Senor Valdes Mandeville, expressed the opinion that it was inadvisable to lay down rigid rules of procedure for times of crisis. The articles of covenant formed a connected system, therefore it was unnecessary to elaborate j.licm. Senor Cantilo supported this viewpoint. Ho said it was better to leave sufficient latitude on the subject of procedure to enable the League to meet all emergencies. Then followed an allusion which was afterwards described in the lobbies as a slap in the face for the United States. Article XXL of the covenant refers to regional understandings, liko the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace. Senor Cantilo, in the interests of historical accuracy, protested against this wording, and said: “As far as L know, the Monroe Doctrine has never been explicitly approved by the other American nations. This political principle owes its origin to the days when the Holy Alliance was enunciated as a means of opposing any attempts at a predatory policy in the Western world. It is not a regional understanding in the sense now accepted; it is purely a unilateral declaration of a principle having no application to the regional agreements being discussed here.” The upshot of the debate was that the committee decided that it was inadvisable to establish a fixed rule by which the Council of the League will declare which is the aggressor or define what constitutes resort to war. The Council was left to decide each case according to the circumstances. It is unofficially stated that the topics much discussed include the prospects of Spain’s return to the League, _ which Sir Austen Chamberlain Is anxious to facilitate; secondly, will the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, due to meet oir March 15, be postponed in view of the pending elections in Franco and Germany; thirdly, what may be deduced from the reports when the Preparatory Commission meets. Mr Hugh Gibson will bo America’s representative.

Monroe Doctrine Attacked at Geneva

Fiendish Murder in France