Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1938. BRITAIN AND GENERAL FRANCO.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 15 July 1938, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1938. BRITAIN AND GENERAL FRANCO.

PROM one standpoint, the exchanges of the British Government with General Franco’s administration in Spain are an almost perfect example of failure to make any progress. On Wednesday, the House of Commons heard a statement by the British Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain), the broad effect of which was that no conclusion has been reached with General Franco on the question of the bombing of British ships and that the matter of the establishment of a safe port in Spain at which British ships might unload'was also at an indeterminate stage.

In the extent to which it has form and definition, the position appears to be pretty much what it was on June 3 last, when the British Parliamentary Under-Sec-retary for Foreign Affairs (Mr R. A. Butler) made a statement in the House of Commons on the same subjects as Mr Chamberlain dealt with on Wednesday last. Mr Butler quoted the then most recent, reply from General Franco’s administration. ■ This, like the reply quoted by Mr Chamberlain on Wednesday, denied that British ships had been singled out deliberately for attack. At that time, too, the question of establishing, safety zones for British ■shipping in Spanish ports was being discussed, and an assurance was offered that the British Government “would use every effort to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion.”

The atmosphere of unchanging stalemate is varied only by the inclusion in Mr Chamberlain’s statement on Wednesday of observations which directly challenge and contradict the assertion of the Burgos authorities that British ships have not been deliberately attacked.

We have hitherto always made protests to Burgos where a vessel lies by itself and as such has been the subject of deliberate attack by low-flying aircraft (the British Prime Minister observed in part). An attack on an isolated vessel must of its very nature be deliberate, particularly in. those circumstances where the vessel has been reconnoitred previously to bombing and has been machine-gunned afterwards.

This uncompromising reference to facts that evidently are established may mean that action of some sort is contemplated, but, apart from any possibilities of this kind that may now be raised, the broad position to date has been that no serious attempt has been made to counter in any way the bombing of British ships in Spain.

Particularly when account' is taken of the essential attendant circumstances, the tolerant eye thus turned by the British Government on what might well be called deeds of lawless and murderous piracy must be regarded as extraordinary. As Mr Chamberlain has pointed out, British ships are prohibited from carrying arms to any port in Spain, so that all that have been bombed and sunk have been carrying cargoes of some more innocent character.

The British Prime Minister, it is true, added that: “At the same time, ships trading in a war zone must accept risks which are the inevitable result of a state of war.” Britain, however, has not conceded belligerent rights to either party in Spain and therefore does not necognise the existence, in a legal sense, of a war zone in that country. Under Mr Chamberlain’s leadership, Britain nevertheless is conceding to General Franco all the liberty of action against her ships,.while they are in Spanish waters, that the most ruthlessly inclined belligerent could possibly desire. It would be sanguine indeed to believe that this policy will contribute in any way to the reestablishment of peace and order in, Europe, or will have any other effect than to stimulate and encourage lawless aggression. A BISHOP’S SUGGESTION. JN itself the suggestion of the Bishop of Waikato (the Rt Rev C. A. Cherrington) that if only five million Japanese were admitted to this country, “New Zealand would not. know itself for the wealth that would ensue,” might, have been allowed to pass as an example of rather forced and laboured humour. Now that it has drawn an approving rejoinder from a representative of the Japanese Foreign Office, it is a question, whether the Bishop’s suggestion must not be classed as the kifid of mischiefmaking that ought to be avoided by people with a serious sense of responsibility. It does not improve the position that Bishop Cherrington’s advocacy of Japanese mass immigration into New Zealand has attracted some approving comment at a meeting of the Waikato Diocesan Synod. With the example that is being afforded today, and has been afforded in the past, of Japanese colonising methods in China, it is remarkable indeed that any Christian clergyman should look to Japan for a solution of the population problems of Australia and New Zealand. Those upon whom the responsibilities of religious leadership devolve might be expected to pay some regard to standards of quality, as against a mere piling up of numbers, in the great enterprise of nation-building. It may very reasonably be hoped that there are vastly better things in store for these Pacific Dominions than occupation by teeming populations living at a coolie standard.