LATEST CABLE NEWS LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 March 1925, Page 3

LATEST CABLE NEWS LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

(iUBIRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. GENEVA, March 12. Mr Chamberlain said the additions made to the original covenant destroyed its balance and altered its spirit. (Emphasis was laid on sanctions and military procedure, etc. it suggested the vital business of the Lea-

gue was not so much the promotion ... of friendly co-operation and reasoned harmony as the preservation of peace by organising war, perhaps on the largest scale. The British Government considered anything leading to the idea that the main business of the League ■was war, rather than peace, was likely to weaker, its fundamental task, lie asked why should disarmament immediately follow the acceptance of the protocol. Why should the new scheme succeed when the old had lamentably failed. The covenant, if kept, would afford protection, but what the objectors doubted was when it came to the point would the covenant he kept. Brute force 'was what either some faithless member of the League or some predatory nation outside would fear, and brute force only could in their view give the security they needed. His Majesty’s Government failed to see how this would he bettered by the protocol. While every scheme of sanctions was open to criticism, some scheme of sanctions was certainly necessary. A\ithout it the League would he as insecure as civilised society without magistrates or police, flis Majesty’s Government might he content to say it preferred the covenant unamended to the covenant amended by protocol, hut it did not wish to ho merely critical. It was willing to consider the possibility of approaching the question from the side unsuccessfully attempted in 1923. Air Chamberlain concluded : Since the general provisions of the Covenant cannot ■advantageously be stiffened and since the extreme discs with which the League might have to deal, would probably affect certain nations or groups of nations more nearly than others, Bis Majesty’s Government concluded the best way of dealing with the situation w»s with the co-operation of the Longue supplemented with the Covenant mentioned above.

PRESS COMMENT. LONDON, Alareli 13

Discussing Britain’s attitude towards the Protocol, the “Morning Post’s” Geneva correspondent says that: “Whatever the effect which the Cabinet intended Mr Chamberlain’s declaration to have, it is regarded as a distinct .set-hack for the League of .Nations. It has created the impression that Britain is alarmed at the prospect of the League getting out of her control, and is employing the Dominions as an excuse to divest hcrsell of hoi responsibility for refusing to participate in any general scheme ol disarmament.” The ’’Morning Post” says editorially: “It is most necessary that British statesmanship should have something constructive and endurable to offer Europe. Hitherto our policy has consisted of running away from schemes, which in capricious moments, it had supported. The aim ol British diplomacy ought to he to support the Treaty of Versailles by strengthening friendships with the Allies who helped to frame it, and if we can bring our former enemies into such arrangements, then peace will he even more firmly L maintained.” “The Daily Telegraph” says: “Mr Chaiulierhiin did not refer to the decisive fact that the Eleventh Article of the Protocol throws the main burden of the cost of carrying out the sanctions upon the British Navy, than which no argument weighed more here, or with the Dominions: hut his argument was thereby less exposed to unfriendly criticism,’ and his case did not need such fortification.” LONDON. March Id. A stirvev of the newspaper comment indicates the fullest recognition, both —liere and on the Continent, of l lie pari played by the Dominions in killing the Protocol. Mr Chamberlain's own allusions, supplemented in many qiinrlois. emphasise the Empire’s unity and the Dominion’s share in Empire policy. How deeply the fact has sunk into the public mind is shown significantly, if with grim humour, by the Protocol’s funeral card, ’drawn liv he League’s cartoonist, Both, and displayed in the lobby ol the Longue Hall, hut removed later by order oF the authorities. In this cartoon, Air Chamberlain is portrayed as the grave-digger, and the British Dominions as the pall hearers, with journalists as n horde ol ravens cioakmg “De Profundis!” LONDON, Alareli Li. -Air Chamberlain slowly and solemnly read his statement of which everyone present had a copy. There is a genera agreement that the destructive current of philosophical doubt underlying the statement could only have emanated from Lord Balfour’s pen. Though there was no surprise at British"verdiet. criticism such as this was not expected. . It is agreed that the document is a nuisterpeee of its kind. Ihoio is no o-reat insistence on mere tcelmiealitesF hut a veritable dissection of the protocol as a whole. . . •Following M. Brisind, Signor Scinlo.ia said that as far as the structure of the Protocol was concerned Italy agreed •with Britain’s view. M. llymnns averred that the Urm* would come when everv nation wotilc. support a scheme based on the Protocol. Mr Cliamherhun subsequently Rave •i recent ion to British journalists. He confessed that he had no alternative. There was no cut and dried scheme available, but he expressed the opinion that the immediate need was a i'esinnpfion of friendly relations between the victors and the vanquished.

C'\N VDA’K OTVIKCTION. OTTAWA, March 12. 'Plio Premier of Canada, Air AlacKenjue Kino, in the House of Commons, minted "from a desnatch sent to Sir Brie Drummond (League of Nations Secretary) summarising the Government's atit.nde towards the Oeneva Protocol as follows :-“AVe do not con-1 sider it in the interests of Canada, the British Empire or the League oi Nations itself, to recommend I arhament s adherence to the Protocol, and particnlarlv its rifrid provision for the application of economic and military sanctions in practically every future war. Ninons' the grounds for this conclusion j H a. consideration ol the efleet of tin non-participation of the United States upon attempts to enforce the sanctions, and particularly in the cases of contiguous countries like Canada. The cable states that C anada should continue to give whole-hearted support to the League, and that she would be prepared to take part m any general conference for a reduction of armaments that did not involve the prior acceptance of the Protocol.’

FRANCE’S STAND. GENEVA, March 12. Al. Briaml (France 1 after dwelling on the importance of All - Chamberlain s speech, defended the protocol, winch lie said ivas nothing but a development of the League Covenant. He did not believe that there was anything formal or decisive in Britain’s statement. France, lie said, stood by the Protocol, but she did not oppose it’s amendment. , ~ i lie concluded by reading the I - reneli Government’s statements in favour of the Protocol. .