WHAT OF THE LEAGUE?

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20734, 18 February 1939, Page 15 (Supplement)

WHAT OF THE LEAGUE?

CAN IT CONTINUE? :: LESSONS OF ITS FAILURE

(Sisley Huddlestone in Christian Science Monitor.)

CAN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS continue to exist? Is that splendid building on the hill of Ariana at Geneva merely a monument to a vanished dream? Many people at Geneva—and among them the best friends of the League—have been asking this question while Europe was being reshaped—but not by the League. Terrible times had come, upon world, and nobody thought of appealing to the Assembly. Even the lip-service of recent years suddenly ceased. The tremendous drama was staged elsewhere. The Uselessness of Geneva in this major crisis was apparent. Now it is better to set down this fact quite plainly. If the League is to be revived, we must recognise its present state. We must to discern its faults. It would be foolish to go on making the same mistakes over and over again. There is little sense in blaming particular nations, in accusing outside forces; for these particular nations, these outside forces, are elements in the problem which Geneva was called upon to solve and which it has failed to solve. There is, first, the question of minorities. It L an unhappy truth that the League has never been allowed to look after the minorities. It received many petitions. It listened to some complaints. But its role was perfunctory. Its most active members had minorities in their midst and were reluctant to permit League interference. Now it is certain that if the minorities could really have relied on the League for fair treatment, revolt and disruption in Europe would not have been possible.. Minorities which believed themselves unprotected have proved to be an explosive force. Secondly, although the fashioning of alliances was incomparable with the spirit of the League, European diplomacy has been built upon alliance. The Little Entent was an alliance. Czechoslovakia linked itself to France, and later to Russia, and thus appeared to be hostile to Germany. Europe tried to have both alliances and the League, and the alliances have broken down precisely when the League is helpless. Again, it was the duty of the League members to disarm. That duty is specifically written into the Covenant. Yet years were spent in futile wrangling. Today, Germany is prodigiously armed, though for considerably more than a decade it was relatively unarmed. We were told that Central European countries were “the aviation ground” of Russia; we were informed that money and material for armaments were constantly being delivered. There was a Lack of Sincerity in Geneva Debates, and it is slightly disingenuous to protest now that certain countries have got ahead in the armaments race. But perhaps the most unfortunate sin of omission is the refusal to revise the treatries. Well do I remember in 1919 the assurances that were given. It was admitted that many of the provisions of the treaties were unfortunate: but it was claimed that for the first time the possibility of peaceful change was envisaged. Article 19 was designed to deal with grievances and injustices. It might have been invoked for the rectification of territorial mistakes. It never has been. On the. contrary, I have frequently heard prominent Leaguers declare that no frontier post could be moved without war. Undoubtedly the case of Czechoslovakia should have been reconsidered long ago—not under pressure, before menaces were made, calmly, dispassionately. But if the League was a League of Lost Opportunities, it could properly plead its youth. Its mistakes were negative. It did not look after minorities, it did not denounce alliances, it did not insist on disarmament, and it did nothing to disturb the status quo. Yet it reserved the future. Some day it would be stronger. Some day it would speak out boldly. Some day it would be a veritable conscience for the world. So we continued to believe in the League, although the United States, Japan, Germany, and afterwards Italy, were among the Great Powers outside the League.

Then something happened which to me seemed irreparable, the decision of the League to put into operation the “sanctions” article. The view of many sincere people was that the League was obliged to use a temporal weapon against Italy. My own view—and I was living at Geneva at the time and felt able to gauge the possibilities—was that the League, in trying to use coercion in a particular instance, was committing suicide, and that it was setting in movement passions that must violently clash. I predicted—unhappily only too well—that in trying, and failing, to stop Italy in Africa, the League would give a free run to Germany in Europe—to say nothing of Japan in China. It was certainly not hard to foresee this result, but even I am staggered at the swiftness with which Germany has, while the feud with Italy lasted, incorporated Austria, cut up Czechoslovakia, destroyed the whole French system of diplomacy, and virtually assured itself the hegemony of Central and South Eastern Europe. No wonder that speaker after speaker arose in the Assembly and in the Commissions to affirm, while the fate of Czechoslovakia was being decided elsewhere, that never again would they vote for “sanctions.” Seven Nordic Ministers, we were reminded, had come to the conclusion that they must stand aside. Belgium, Ifke Switzerland, proclaimed its neutrality. Poland asserted that it must be left free to judge for itself. Yugoslavia intimated that it will be guided by the attitude of its friends and neighbours. Latvia, Estonia, and others repudiated the obligatory character of “sanctions.” Even England decided against automatic “sanctions” ... If further evidence of the general opinion that “sanctions” should not be applied in future is needed, it will be found in the decision of the League, in condemning Japan under Article 16, to leave each State to do whatever it pleased “individually.” That the “sanctions” experiment has Reduced the League to Impotence, and disturbed profoundly the policy no one can now deny. No conclusion drawn by the League, and, therefore, the Covenant remains unaltered. But the League in circulating the observations of members, makes it quite clear that in practice Article 16 is scrapped. Moreover, there was general approval for the separation of the Covenant from the peace treaties in which it was embodied in 1919. Nothing confirmed more the view that the League stood for the status quo than the inclusion of the Covenant in the treaties. That misapprehension has now been removed. The League is not. in future, to be the champion of dictated texts. It is free to judge of situations without reference to what happened 20 years ago. Is it possible to see in these decisions a gleam of hope for the revival of the League? The minorities problem is being settled without the League; the revision of treaties is taking place under our eyes; the system of alliances has proved to be unworkable; “sanctions” have become clearly impossible; and disarmament, or at least a halt in the alarming race, is now a supreme necessity. If the League as a first-class organisation is to continue, it must furnish a non-political common ground on which dictators and democrats can meet. It must develop its constructive mission. All countries have certain interests which are not antagonistic; they are all concerned with economic well-being, social welfare, intellectual progress. That vast palace at Geneva, cannot, in my oninion, house a political League; and that is the lesson of these past few years. But it can, and should, house a League with a positive purpose—a League which will take no part in campaigns against particular countries, crusades against particular ideologies, but will invite the whole world to consider ways and means of co-operation to the Common Good of Mankind. To many who have permitted their emotions to overcloud their judgments, this will appear to be a curtailment of the League’s scope. In realitv, it is an enlargement. A partisan League, a coercive League, a political League, can no longer exist; but there is room for a comprehensive League, a co-operative League, a League that shall be at once practical and spiritual.