FRANCE, AMERICA, AND THE LEAGUE.
[To THE BOUM% or THE "SPECUTOII.'91 Sig, Will you allow me to point out that the attitude of the Spectator in regard to America, France, and the League of Nations is perhaps not altogether just? America, in spite of the fact that the League is largely the conception of an American statesman, has refused to take part in it because it clashes with her constitution. France, in spite of the fact that the League has not been constituted as her statesmen wished, is taking part in it, and her statesmen are playing leading roles in its deliberations. But France cannot bring herself to have absolute confidence in the security offered by the League, because in her opinion that security is not suffi- cient. With regard to America you, Sir, write: " We do not care how much the League is altered so long as America comes in." With regard to France you write: "Safety for France is to be found in the League of Nations." To America you offer a compromise; to France you offer advice. Surely the same deference is due to the French nation, with its immense experience of European politica, as to the American nation, which in spite of its- noble ideals and generosity has always avoided. European entanglements. There is one concession, however, which could he made to the French and which would do much to allay their fears. That is that England should promise her full assistance to France in case of unprovoked attack, whether America ratifies the Defensive Pact of Help
or not. At present French public opinion is actually being alienated from the League by the thought that owing to its existence France has lost the promise of our help in case of attack. It would not add greatly to our honour as a nation if it could be said that we were willing to promise our assist- ance to our ally only on condition that America followed suit.
Previous page
