FOLLOWING PRECEDENT

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19880, 8 May 1936, Page 6

FOLLOWING PRECEDENT

The failure of the League of Nations to deal energetically with the threat to Chinese territorial independence, when Japan created the puppet State of Manchukuo, is said to have been a factor in determining the policy of Signor Mussolini regarding Abyssinia. In the one case the communications and strategical points were already in the hands of the aggressor nation; in the other they had to be captured by force of arms and the use of poison gas, but the diplomatic explanations in the two cases were somewhat similar. Both aggressors were allegedly protecting their special rights; both claimed that they had been compelled to take action. And the parallel seems likely to be drawn still further. The Japanese held that the movement in Manchukuo was really an up-rising of the people, and that the creation of the State was an instance of selfdetermination. The Lytton Report destroyed that flimsy pretence, but officially it is still advanced by the Japanese. According to the cable messages from Rome, the Fascist leader has lost no time in making a somewhat similar claim with respect to Abyssinia. “ The fact that the Abyssinians rose against the Emperor,” Signor Mussolini declared, “ and welcomed advance of our troops was an act of self-determination in favou/ Italy.” A nation beaten to its knees by armed aggression has little choice, and the inhabitants of Addis Ababa had mot* than one good reason to adopt an attitude of welcome. The city Lad been deluged with printed statements, signed by the Italian Commander-in-Chief, to the effect that if they resisted the advance he would raze the whole place. Self-determination could not be exercised under such conditions, but it is hardly likely that the wishes of the people themselves in the matter will be even considered. A poorly armed and practically untrained nation they held their own for months in open warfare, giving as good as they received, but they could not withstand poison gas, and from the time that this awful weapon was brought into action against them their cause was hopeless. There are still important international questions to be discussed, and the fate of the League of Nations may become involved, but this destruction of an independent State may bring the members of the League to face the realities. This is war as it will be fought in the future. Deadly gases will be used, despite international agreements; treaties regarding the observance of territorial independence will be ignored and pacts set aside. Surely the need is plainer than ever for nations of goodwill to band together, and be prepared to act together to withstand aggression? The world has seen something of the terrible menace of modern armaments, so that now, more than at any time, a way must be found to ensure collective security. The signatories must be ready to go to greater lengths than formerlv; they must be prepared to incur grave risks for the maintenance of peace. For the first time moro than fifty States have made an effort to hamper the activities of an aggressor nation; now they must devise ways and means for making the use of war as an implement of policy so dangerous that even dictators will not risk it.