The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1919. THE REVISED COVENANT.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 May 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1919. THE REVISED COVENANT.

The revised text of the League of Nations covenant, so far as can be gathered from the cable summary, does not disclose much alteration from the previous text, though there are some important matters which have been settled since the draft was published. Membership of the League appears to have been definitely settled, thirty-two nations, in which the Dominions are separately counted, forming the original membership, while thirteen neutrals have been invited to join. These, together with the signatory nations, are named in the list which forms part of thp cable containing the text, and it will be seen therefrom that the covenant will be world-wide in its operation, the notable exceptions at present being Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria, Russia and the separated Russian States. It is laid down that only such States can obtain membership 'as will accede without question to the terms of the covenant, but the admission of any fully selfgoverning State can only be secured by obtaining a two-thirds majority' of the members of its Assembly, coupled with guarantees of its sincere intention to observe international obligations. This is a very proper safeguard, and is evidently intended to conserve the harmonious administration of the League. Provision is, also made for withdrawal, after two years' notice, if the with drawing nation has fulfilled all its obligations under the covenant. The entry of both Russia and Germany is anticipated in the future, but not until they are established as Great Powers, and can be trust ed to honor their obligations, One of the most difficult subjects in the scope of the League is that which is dealt with in Article B—namely, reduction of armaments. It seems to have been considered impossible to strictly define what the size and strength of each nation's forces should be until the peace of the world has been placed on a solid and durable basis. Under present conditions it is imperative that certain of the nations must maintain much larger armies than others, especially under the mandatory system, and the chaotic conditions which exist in several countries that may at any moment become a menace to others. In tha absence of an international armed force under the control of the League it is obvious that the Allies must keep up far larger forces I than a peace footing would warj rant. The consequence is that the covenant does not dictate the size; of national forces, the Council of the League merely formulating I plans which the Governments may j accept or reject, but which will be the basis of future agreement when circumstances permit the re- ! duction of armies and armaments to a permanent peace basis, These provisions do not ancly to Ger-

many, whose limit as to armed forces of all descriptions is fixed by the peace terms. One of the weakest portions of the covenant is to be found in Article 12, dealing with possible ruptures between of the League. Every effort is to be made to settle the dispute by arbitration, but no definite line of action is provided for effecting a settlement by compulsion, so that in the event of a war between the disputants it is to be deemed to be an act of war against all the other members of the League. Yet even that declaration of Avar is of a very restricted nature, being confined to severance of all trade and financial relations, and prohibition of intercourse—practically a boycott. At the same time there is provision that the Council of the League shall recommend to the several [Governments concerned which ef jfective forces of various 'kinds 'members of the League can eonItribute to protect the covenants bf the League, the members also Agreeing to support one another. 'This is obviously a compromise 'thatis foredoomed to failure, and it would have been far better policy to have faced the contingency boldly and decidedly by providing, in the case of a refusal to arbitrate, that the League should take the matter into its own hands, intimate its decision and back up that decision by armed force if necessary. It is provided that where a dispute arises between a State which is a member of the League and a State which is not, or between States that are not members, the disputants outside the League shall be invited to enter in order to. have the matter settled, but if such States refuse to submit to the League's decision measures are to be taken by the League to prevent hostilities and to settle the dispute. Here also the modus operandi is not clearly indicated as regards the final means of settlement. .It would seem that the framers of the covenant, whenever they came to a dead end, as represented by nations bent on war, failed to find a satisfactory solution and gave it up in despair. A point that needed clearing up was that relating to territorial integrity, and it is satisfactory to note that each nation must settle its own internal affairs without the intervention of the League, thus placing domestic affairs outside the scope of the covenant concerning territory and limiting the League's action to the prevention of forcible annexation. On the whole, in view of the fact that international engagements treaties of arbitration, and regional understandings sueh as the Monroe doctrine are not to be interfered with, the birth of this League of Nations may be cordially welcomed as a well-meant effort in the cause of pedce. To a certain extent it is elastic, and, if well administered, should prove beneficial to the world at large.