FAITH IN THE LEAGUE

Evening Star, Issue 22147, 30 September 1935, Page 9

FAITH IN THE LEAGUE

BRITAIN WILL STAND BY COVENANT REPLY TO FRENCH INQUIRY (British Official Wireless.) Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright RUGBY, September 28. (Received September 30, at noon.) The text of the letter signed by Sir Samue). Hoare, which was handed to the French Ambassador on September 26, is now published. The terms are:— “ In the inquiry you were so good as to address to Sir Robert Vansittart on September 10 your Excellency expresesd the desire of your Government, in connection with the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, to learn to what extent it might be assured in future of the immediate and effective application by this country of all the sanctions provided by Article 16 of the Covenant in the event of violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and resort to force in Europe, and you referred in particular to the eventuality of resort to force in Europe on the part of some European State, whether or not that State might be a member of the League. In reply I invite your attention to the words 1 used in my speech to the League Assembly on September 11. I declared His Majesty’s Government to be second to none in its intention to fulfil within the measure of its capacity the obligations which the Covenant lays upon it, and I added that the ideas embodied in the Covenant, and, in particular, the aspiration to establish a rule of law in international affairs, had appealed with growing force to the strain of idealism in British national character, and had, indeed, become a part of the national conscience. “ I took the opportunity to repudiate any suggestion that the attitude of His Majesty’s Government had been one of other than unwavering fidelity to the League and all it stands for, and I draw attention to the fact that the recent response of public opinion in this country showed how completely the nation supported the Government in full acceptance of the obligations of League membership, which was oft proclaimed the keynote of its foreign policy. I added that to suggest or insinuate that this policy was for some reason peculiar to the Italo-Abyssinian conflict would be a complete misunderstanding. Nothing could, in fact, he further from the truth, I said, and I sincerely welcome this opportunity to repeat with full responsibility that it is to the principles of the League and not to any particular manifestation thereof that the people of this country had demonstrated their adherence. Any other view would at once bo an underestimate of British good faith and an imputation upon British sincerity in conformity with its precise and explicit obligations. I pointed out, and I re-emphasise, that the League stands, and this country stands with it, for collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression.

“I think it will be generally agreed that no member of the League could lay down its policy in advance of any particular case likely to bring that policy into consideration with greater clarity and decision than in those words. You will observe I spoke, as I am now writing, of all acts of unprovoked aggression. Each word in that sentence must have its full value. It is at once evident that procedure under Article 16 of the Covenant, appropriate as regards a positive act of unprovoked aggression, is not made applicable as regard a negative act of failure to fulfil the terms of a treaty. Further, in the case of resort to force it is clear that there may be degrees of culpability and degrees of aggression, and consequently in the cases where Article 16 applies the nature of the action appropriate to be taken under it may vary according to the circumstances of each particular case. Your Government, as I am aware, already recognises these distinctions, and similarly in regard to treaty obligations it is pertinent to recall that, as I already said at Geneva, elasticty is a part of security, and that every member of the League must recognise, as the Covenant itself recognises, that the world is not static.

“If it be suggested that this declaration of support for the principles of the Covenant, embodied in my recent speech at Geneva and reaffirmed in the present Note, represents only the policy of His Majesty’s present Government and not necessarily that of its successors in office, I may point out that while my words at Geneva were in fact spoken on behalf of the present Government of this country, those words were also spoken with the overwhelming support and approval of the people of this country. I stated at Geneva, and, as has since become increasingly evident, the attitude of public opinion in the last few weeks has clearly demonstrated the fact that it is moved by no variable and unreliable sentiment, but is concerned with the general principle of international conduct, to which it will firmly hold as long as the League remains an effective body. His Majesty’s Government believes that that organism, which in the considered opinion of this nation represents the one and onl.y real hope of avoiding the senseless disasters of the past and ensuring world peace by collective security in the future, will not lightly render itself impotent by lack of faith in, and refusal of, effective action on behalf of its own ideals; but that faith and that action must, < like security, be collective; The point is so vital that I must, in conclusion, once more quote my words • at Geneva—namely, if risks for peace are to be run they must be run by all. As long as the League preserves itself by its own example this Government and this nation will live up to its full principles,” FRENCH GOVERNMENT SATISFIED PARIS, September 29. (Received September 30, at 2 p.m.) An official message states that the Government is completely satisfied with Sir Samuel Hoare’s note, and adds that nothing could be more definite.