The Assembly
ONCE more the Assembly of the League of Nations has proved that its meetings are the Most interesting events of the political world ; that alone should encourage every enthusiast for the League, whether he likes or not the words that eventually appear in the proces-verbaux. General apathy, the most deeply feared enemy, has become impossible, and we entirely dissent from a view expressed last week in a letter from a Scottish correspondent that the Unionist Party is lukewarm towards the League, or worse. The resignation of Lord Cecil is no proof that the Government is hostile, but only that it cannot advance at the pace of an inde- pendent enthusiast. We regret his resignation for reasons that we have given already, but we are com- forted by the recollection of the work he did in Paris in 1919. As a British Minister or member of the Peace Delegation he would probably have exerted less influence for' good than he did. When he begins his independent campaign of education we expect him to influence the Government from outside even more than from within, and we believe that the Government will be as glad as anyone to feel his influence at work.
The meetings of the Assembly have a wonderful effect in clearing the air. Diplomacy carried on in private may be good or bad ; it certainly need not be bad merely because someone can call it "hole-and-corner intrigue." Publicity and secrecy are not of the essence of the business ; they may be qualities attendant on good or bad work equally. We are not writing now of the Council, but in the Assembly of aver fifty members is it conceivable that there should be no private con- versations? Let us be fair to the human beings at Geneva, and we need not be less thankful for the clearing of the air by the public speeches. Of these by far the most important was that of Sir Austen Chamberlain, which surprised by its firmness and candour and yet pleased even the unwilling by its honesty and eloquence. The Polish proposal, of which we give the text on our first page, was before the Assembly, and recalled the Protocol of 1924. The resolution is of the kind that the world could either piously approve and lay on the shelf, or seize upon, keep to the fore, and exalt to the level of the Articles of the Covenant. Its first use has been to weaken the revived demand for• the Protocol. Holland and Scandinavia naturally hanker after the protection that they thought in 1924 was going to benefit them. They have earned everyone's sympathy from the days when Sweden accepted the decision upon the Aaland Islands to the day when Denmark carried the "League Spirit" to the length of voluntary disarmament. But the Protocol is now past history and must be so, for it created too many dangers in the place of those it was designed to prevent. The great good done by the discussions of the Protocol lay in this, that many people who ought to have known better learnt for the first time how great were the• commitments of the signatories of the COvenant. Articles X. to XVI., apart from the initial declaration, should be enough to prevent war in our time and commit us all as deeply as we can bear in matters of guarantees. The spirit should suffice and, if it does not, the letter is supplemented by pacts such as those negotiated at Loearno. Sir Austen had in mind not only the political facts Of to-day, the new proposal and the hankering after the Protocol. He was also aware of the ignorant or ignoble campaign that has been waged of late ,against• the British Empire, which has .been accusej. of selfish . obstruction to the aims of the League. Few people here realize this or could take seriously such a travesty of the truth...But it has been rife at Geneva and Sir Austen rightly defended his country, and did not stop. at mere defence. He made a deep impression on the Assembly by recalling what Great Britain has done to. carry out the intentions of the League, as was her duty,. and what she has done in works of supererogation. He accomplished the repellent task of blowing our own, trumpet with tact and frankness which made the other delegates realize that it was necessary for Great Britain to speak out, to correct misunderstanding and to inform. them Of facts. Sir Austen did not only point out what, we had done and tried to do, of which the greatest act. was the committing of the Empire to guarantee the peace of Western Europe. He did not merely plead that we had shouldered as great burdens as we have the means and strength to bear. .He told those who cavilled at our reluctance to involve ourselves in further. responsibilities that they themselves should do more' for the objects of the League. No other nation had taken such responsibility as we took at Locarna. Except Japan, no other naval power would even discuss limitation of armaments with the United States. Which other nation had not buttoned up its pockets more tightly at the mention of the financial guarantee to a victim of aggressive war ? And so on: All this was, necessary, and has been wholesome.
If it has done the good that we hope it has, the way will be clearer for active advance which has been hampered. so far. In speaking so trenchantly of our commitments. outside the Empire, Sir Austen had little need to use. one argument which we would have gladly found turn emphasizing for reasons apart from the points on which. he was concentrating. He did not. ask Great Britain's critics whether, if we were to go_to all lengths in giving. guarantees, in picking chestnuts Out of the fire for other, nations as they have come to expect us to do, we wer6 to abandon that great purpose of the Leave, Disarma- ment. There must be a ratio between external commit- ments and armaments. We should have liked to see. Sir Austen taking a more constructive line upon Dis- armament, but we believe that he has cleared the way most helpfully in that direction. We believe that Lord Cecil has been right, from the point of view of the, statesman of the world, in his advocacy of Disarmament and the place he has given to it ever since he laboured at the Treaty or Mutual Assistance. We do not urge,. a revival of that proposal, to which there were other objections. Nor unfortunately can we urge ,a universal., haste over Disarmament. How can, we urge the neighbours of Russia to disarm while she, keeps up a, vast army (we suspect that the reports of its size and efficiency are greatly exaggerated), a fighting machine controlled by a Government that glories in its hostility. to everyone else, and invents tales Qft imminent attacks from goodness knows who among the nations of Europe in' order to terrify her people into a warlike spirit ? These crazy and malevolent Muscovites are a real, stumbling-block. Nevertheless, We want to . see.. Dis. armament kept to the fore as the policy of the nations. Serious action in that direction is long overdue under the opening clause of Part V. of the Treaty of Versailles. , It has also been called for ever since the War by everYone . . . , possessing any ideals of Christianity,. humanity, or statesmanship. It is likely, too, to be a matter of self-preservation for the civilized world.
Previous page
