LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Taranaki Daily News, 19 February 1919, Page 5

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

CAUTION AND HOPEFULNESS,

RESTRICTED ARMAMENTS. FRANCE WANTS ARMED BACKING. Received Feb. 18, 5.5 p.m. Paris, Feb. IG. The reception of the covenant is marked by caution and hopefulness. There is a strong underlying feeling that an earnest attempt is vital to Europe, because the strain of competition in armaments will disrupt civilization. The war has so shocked the moral of even the victorious countries that the old style of unrestricted armaments must prove suicidal, but the league lias not yet been created, and it will have critical hours before the covenant is adopted. The worst danger lies in FrancoAmerican diil'erences. France says: You forbid us alliances and armaments, and oiler us only a league as a guarantee against the barbarous Germans, who have invaded, devastated and robbed us four times in a hundred years, and are coming yet again. We regard the league as inadequate unless the members for America and Britain guarantee to maintain armies trained and ready to sail within fourteen days for our protection Britain would probably agree to this, but Wilson won't. He thinks the project could not pass the American Senate. There the matter stands. M. Bourgeois fought hard in the last days of the commission for the inclusion of two clauses, one of which established a permanent military commission under the league to control disarmament, and act as a unified command in (he event of trouble, while the other provided for a permanent military and naval organisation for the execution of the covenants and obligations, and for the immediate efficiency in armed measures in case of urgency. Baron Makino urged the inclusion of a clause expressing in effect that all countries be free to all peoples of the world, but it was immediately made plain that such a clause was impossible, and the proposal was withdrawn temporarily. It is understood that the Japanese delegates will bow gracefully to the inevitable, though references to racial bars will be made during the discussions.— United Service. AN HONEST EFFORT. FOR AVOIDING WAR. Received Feb. 19, 1 a.m. Paris, Feb. 10 . Sir Joseph Ward, discussing the League of Nations, said that everyone must agree without hesitation to the fundamental need for peace settlement. There is definite machinery for the prevention of ;■, recurrence of the great world tragedy. An honest effort must be made to construct international means for avoiding war. The covenant certainly represents the best and most honest thought on the matter. It is not free from defects, but provides all the principles for a substantial foundation for international co-operation. It is less cumbersome than expected, with enough elasticity to permit of general improvement and evolution. The article/dealing with the future admission of enemy States is explicit. Regarding the necesmany articles represent drastic restrictions on previous freedom of enterprise, but the league should succeed in maintaining a general assent to thc-ni. As regards the mandatories, the delegate, must accept the system. It is impossible io have a league without a mandatory system. If each is to be given a thorough trial the experiment should never be worse than tolerable. Those with an ii-timate knowledge of the South Pacific necessarily favor British control, because it develops the natives and gives them liberty. We need not fearthe mandatory clause. It will inevitably lead to a desire by the natives for free absorption in the neighboring British communities, where they will get a full measure of justice and equal opportunities. Sir Jo..eph Ward added that the alternative to the scheme was ruination and Bolshevism. He did not regard the league as creating a supcrnational State. Indeed'thero was nothing in it preventing the proper upkeep of the British Aavy.— Lnited Service. THE DRAFT DISCUSSED. GENERAL APPROVAL. Paris, f o i,. Ir; . President Wilson, in submitting the draft of the League of Nations .scheme, said the great thing about the league scheme was that fur the ihst time in iiisto-.y it gave the bith-ito downtrodden element* of <-ivilisation a chance. Lord Robert 'Veil emphaMSed the fact that the scheme would preserve the pen.ee of the world with the least possible interference with national sovereignty. No nation could gc to war {ill t i|| means for the settlement of -disputes had been fuliy tried, and no nation could seek to I disturb the territorial settlements arrived at in the peace trei'ly. It would do mere than fori.:.! war. it ~„u l d institute lni.-rnafiena] co-n| edition in pla;e of international, competition. -Mr. Barnes cvnvewed great satisfaction with the M'heme. in that it substi- \ tilted altruistic principles i ; , the .settlement of international troubles. He eulogised the proposals for (he reduction of armaments and international labor organisation, from which he prophesied great things. He regretted the absence of a provision for an iiiternaticnc! force. M. Venizelos supported the proposals. Several references were made during I the debate to the mandatories. President Wilson, when reading from the draft, pointedly paused on the mandatory section, saying: "This was care fully discussed bv the representatives of the Powers, and (heir conclusions are embodied in the article." Later, one of the Fedjaz delegates r-nphasised the importance to thpm of t'ic mandatory provision, claiming the r "hr to select their own mandatory. '■b- Joseph Cook (Australia) and Sir •""li Ward were present.—Aus. N.Z. I aide Assoc.