Britain and the League

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 471, 28 September 1928, Page 9

Britain and the League

“TIMES” REVIEWS WORK Naval Compromise Mistake VARIOUS CRITICISMS DEALT WITH British Official Wireless. Reed. 12.45 p.ru. RUGBY, Thursday. IN au article entitled, “Great Britain and the League,” "The rimes reviews the work of the League session, and deals with the criticisms levelled at the attitude adopted by the British Government on current international questions.

“The Times” comments on the businesslike nature of the League session, on the absence of a set of oratorical displays, on the great attention paid to its organisation and personnel, on the atmosphere of Quiet confidence in the League’s stability, and on the growing realisation of the immense advantages of the form of international co-operation which it provides. The League has, in fact, taken root in the world, and is indispensable. As to the British attitude toward the League, “The Times” declares:— “Not merely is Great Britain in every sense its strongest supporter, but under the present administration, League work has become an integral element of the British foreign poiicy, and the Foreign Secretary has taken an active part in every meeting of the Council and the Assembly, until his illness this month.” indefensible tactics Regarding the Anglo-French naval compromise, “The Times” thinks the British Government’s motives may be defended, but not its tactics. . Bs real mistake lay, not in thinking too little of the League, but in thinking too narrowly in terms of the League Preparatory Commission on Disai mament, and not sufficient of the state of American opinion. The deadlock in the Disarmament Commission was the occasion for the conversations that led to the compromise. Its object was to provide a new basis for discussion between the chief naval Powers, and so to make it possible for the commission to go on with its work. If that basis is not accepted and if no alternative is offered, the Preparatory Commission will have to look to the United States for further light on its difficult problem.” RHINELAND EVACUATION Dealing with the Rhineland, “The Times” says few people in England pretend to like its occupancy. The general feeling is that it is unnecessary and embarrassing, and that it has served its purpose. That is not the feeling in France, which has special relations with Germany that are by no means all unfriendly. Great Britain has assisted at various stages in promoting better relations between Franr 3 and Germany, and is thoroughly friendly with both. A sudden withdrawal of the British troops from the Rhineland could only be a perfectly useless and harmful demonstration leading to confusion. It would not have helped Germany. It would have offended France, and would almost certainly have caused further irritating delay in the evacuation Of the French troops. “Lord Cushendum has helped in the only possible way by taking account of the realities, and bringing France and Germany to the point of practical negotiations. There is reason to hope that the proposed committee of experts will find a solution possible of certain reparations difficulties, that will benefit both France and Germany and will remove the last barrier to an early joint evacuation of all foreign troops from German soil. It has b&en laid down that the settlement shall be such as will not involve any additional

burden on the British taxpayers. In these circumstances, the action takeu by Lord Cushendun advances the cause of European peace, and does credit both to Great Britain and to the League, under whose auspices the conversations were carried on.” Commenting oa the statement of tho Foreign Office about the AngloFrench naval compromise, the diplomatic correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” says that suspicions would never have arisen but for the unnecessary secrecy in which the AngloFrench agreement was shrouded and the delay on the part of officials in contradicting the . charges formulated in the Rome newspaper “Tribuna,” and elsewhere. “WAY OF MADNESS" The “Daily Chronicle,” in an article headed, “This Way Madness Lies,” says: Bad work has been done for Britain in the past two mouths by pitiful blundering at the Foreign Office. The mess is due to the Government persistently subordinating our foreign policy to that of France, whereas the keynote of British policy ought first and foremost to be the closest possible understanding with America. The “Daily Herald” says: No agreement or understanding existed in 1906, but we now know that the conversations which British and French experts then held provided for naval and military co-operation equivalent to an alliance. A message from Paris says the newspaper “Le Matin” remarks: If America opposes the limitation of submarines and cruisers, as agreed to by the French and British Admiralties, those principles will be abandoned or modified by France.