Communication
Great Britain and Scandinavia
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR, Wide as his been the scope of recent Parliamentary Debates on European affairs, little attention seems to have been paid to the position of the ex-neutrals, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark. They make a poor show when it comes to a muster of aero- planes and battleships. But if we still believe in a moral power, and in the League of Nations as a moral force, we have to admit that the ex-neutrals with their relatively disinterested (and sometimes irritatingly aloof) view of affairs have a prominent part to play in the preseivation of peace.
It is a sad reflection on the Europe of today that their influence counts for less than at any time since 1914. And because their counsels do not seem to be wanted, nor their mediation valued, they are falling back on a• negative neutrality which, just like the heavy armaments of France and Germany, is based on fear. Look first upon this picture : Dr. Munch, the Danish Foreign Minister, washing his hands of the European problem by the simple expedient of refusing to vote on the Council's resolution on the German conscription decree. And then upon that : Dr. Nansen the Norwegian delegate, expressing, emphatically, his views on the international situation, with the full knowledge that his words might irritate at least one Great Power. An interval of 10 years lies between the two.
It will always be difficult to get Norway and Sweden, to take the neutrals which are farthest away from the European danger zone, to participate in international politics to the point where the faintest suspicion of a risk is involved. The Scandinavian peoples are apt to insist that what goes on in the world is no concern of theirs, and that they are not respon- sible for what happens. They seem quite prepared to take the international system as they find it, which, so far as they are concerned, means the British system, and to make use of it to their own advantage, and yet refuse to contribute towards its maintenance. The words of the great Swedish philosopher Esais Tegner are as applicable today as when they Were written in 1823. " But we who live in the uttermost North," he wrote, " we who have the mountains for walls and the sea 'for a moat around us, we who stand in the pit of the European Theatre and look down upon the great tragedy in the South, how are we concerned with disputes which have not yet reached us ? These are questions asked by drowsy Sloth, and selfish Ignorance. No matter how distant we are, we yet are members of the great commonwealth of civilized states, we are a forest chapel under the great Mother Church of Europe." It was the idea of the League of Nations that by spreading risks, by making 'every country feel that it had a stake in the present world system, it would create a feeling of responsibility among the small Powers and an atmosphere in which all nations according to their capacities could help to maintain world peace. Into this kind of League, despite a certain diffidence about playing even a small part on the European stage, the Scandinavian States agreed to enter.
But such a League—and, thanks as much to Mussolini as to Hitler, we have moved far away from it• today—depends entirely upon Great Britain. Unless the full moral power of the British people is behind it, the smaller countries count for nothing, and Might again becomes_ the arbiter of Right. When Great Britain neglectS the League, as she did in that year of crisis, 1931, the small nations arc powerless and Con- science 'herself is mute. But when Great Britain devotes her energies to the League, as she did during the Saar dis- cussions last year, the ex-neutrals, even the Scandinavian States, find their courage and moral influence restored. Did not Sweden• so far- forsake her own traditions as to send a contingent of troops to the Saar ? Did not this momentary revival of the moral influence of the smaller Powers and of the prestige of the League immediately ease the international situation ? And yet this took place in the most unfavourable circumstances possible. After years of disappointed hopes the reputation of the League and the belief of many European States in the possibility of the peaceful settlement of inter- national disputes had fallen almost to vanishing point. It needed but the intervention of Mr. Anthony Eden for this process to be reversed. The neutrals were reminded of their responsibilities and the Saar crisis was peacefully and triumph- antly overcome.
Though Mr. Eden's handling of the Abyssinian crisis re- dounded to the credit of the League, it must be confessed that since the Saar settlement its reputation has, on the whole, resumed its decline. Again the smaller States are being made to feel that they count for nothing and that European affairs are in the hands of two or three Powers who settle everything behind locked doors. If affairs are thus settled, well and good. But we all-khow that the chance of achieving a satisfactory solution on 'these lines is remote. Can we, then, do without the moral influence of the small countries, and particularly of the ex-neutrals ? Can we afford to have any single State standing aside with folded arms as a passive spectator of the European Tragedy, with no higher aim than to save its skin from the Great Carnage ?
" It is no business of ours," said Mr. Sandys, the Conserva- tive member for Norwood, in the recent Parliamentary Debate on Foreign Affairs, " to be pro-German or pro-French ; it is our business to be pro-British." No truer word was spoken if it means that Great Britain ought to resume her traditional role of leading and supporting the small independent countries, instead of supporting this or that bloc of Powers through thick and thin. British influence on world affairs was never higher than in the nineteenth century when Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gladstone stood out boldly as the champions of small independent States. Such a policy would save the League and would bring back into play all the moral forces which now wither for lack of opportunity.
Only by calling upon these moral forces is it possible to create a true collective system in which all States, each according to its strength, would participate. And only a truly collective system, in which Britain is neither pro-French nor pro-German, but pro-peace, in which each country, but especially those countries which are fortunate enough to be uninvolved in the historic feuds of Europe, is asked to assume its share of responsibility for maintaining world peace, has any chance of preventing a conflict which may engulf our civilization. To those who say that the small Powers are ineffective in a military sense and that their practical par- ticipation in a collective system cannot be of much weight, with the result that the burden of the system would fall on Great Britain, I would answer this : the mere existence of a strong collective system would make military action less necessary. Moreover, even Hitler, with his disregard for opinion at home, is profoundly mindful of opinion abroad. The present efforts of German propaganda to convince the ex-neutrals of the fundamental justice of Nazi aspirations prove that Germany is well aware that her cause cannot ultimately triumph, either peacefully or by force of arms, if world opinion is unyieldingly hostile. Italian propaganda bears witness to the same conviction. An observer stationed in one of the neutral States has the impression that Hitler and Mussolini, and, to a lesser extent, France, are very careful to appear on the European stage in a guise aimed at favourably impressing opinion in neutral lands. They are, in short, manoeuvring to get the conscience of the world on their side.
No greater tribute could be paid to the strength of moral forces, and, hence, to the possibility of a collective system. Only Great Britain can breathe life into a collective system, fir among the Great Powers only Great Britain has a relatively detached outlook on European affairs, and only Great Britain enjoys the confidence of the small Powers. Even today, at the eleventh hour, the ex-neutrals could still be persuaded to co-operate with Great Britain to make peace world-wide and indivisible. We know that Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are in constant consultation and that they are prepared to throw their influence into the scale at the right time, provided it is welcomed. M. Sandler, the Swedish Foreign Minister, one of the ablest statesmen in this group of countries, spoke the other day about neutrality, and said that it was a " natural " state for regions such as Scandinavia and the United States of America. This does not mean that he has withdrawn from the European stage. But it does mean that faith is ebbing. Only Great Britain can revive it.—I am, Sir, &c., YOUR STOCKHOLM CORRESPONDENT.
Previous page
