" THE LAST CHANCE FOR THE LEAGUE."
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—On my return to-day from Geneva, where I spent a few days observing the Fifth Assembly of the League at work, I read, not without disappointment, your somewhat hostile, and, therefore, unexpected, criticism of that busy organization. I believe that no single European statesman —not even M. Poincare—would, to-day, support the view, publicly or privately, that this session of the Assembly " will settle, one way or the other, the fate " of the League. There never was any fear that this session would be barren of results —no session ever has been !—but even assuming failure on the part of the Fifth Assembly, the League would still have continued to function and develop through the Council, as well as through the various technical commissions and administrative organizations. As to " inviting" States to join the League, I would respectfully ask the writer of your leading article to re-read the Covenant, Article 1 in particular. There is no need for any invitation. If a State does not wish to join the League, an invitation would surely be futile. If a State does desire membership, there is nothing to prevent it making formal application in the authorized manner. " In the case of Germany, she has received the broadest of possible hints not only that her application for membership would be particularly welcome at the present time, but also that a seat would be provided for her on the Council on terms of equality. If Germany does not apply, it will obviously be no fault of the League's—but a golden opportunity will, admittedly have been lost.
The accusation that the League is a league of victorious States is—if you will forgive my saying so baldly—a definite misstatement of fact, as a little mental arithmetic clearly shows. Of the fifty-four Member-States in the League, thirty-seven were, during the War, either neutrals or definitely on the side of the enemy. This fact is irrefutable, easily confirmed, and far beyond the reach of argument to the contrary ; the criticism is a bogy long since exorcised. It is no use replying that the Allies have a slight predominance on the Council, because that contention is met by the fact that decisions of that body must be unanimous.
There are other statements in the leader which seem to me to be inaccurate, but I have, perhaps, presumed sufficiently on your patience to indicate that the basis of the argument used is faulty and that, in consequence, the Spectator is, for once in a way, guilty of an injustice. Like most keen sup- porters of the League of Nations, I welcome criticism, especially constructive criticism, of its constitution and activi- ties, but I greatly deplore any commentary which tends to mislead public opinion or discourages those who are working might and main to complete the structure on the foundations so well and truly laid four years ago.
The League has some tremendous tasks to face. If it is to achieve further success it requires the sympathy, under- standing and support of a world-wide and enlightened public opinion. Anything or anyone that prejudices the latter against the League by means of misrepresentation—however unintentional—is retarding a work whose early completion is essential to the future security of civilization.—I am, Sir, &c., [We are familiar with our correspondent's method of proving the impartiality of the League by putting Nicaragua against France and Latvia against the British Empire. The fact remains, however, that for four years the League contained no ex-enemy State, and that it now only includes Austria and Hungary, the affairs of both of which it has taken over as they have become helpless and bankrupt. We fear that our correspondent would receive a severe shock if he discussed the League anywhere east of the Rhine. Even if the League is impartial, it has signally failed to prove the fact and gain the confidence of the defeated States, and we fear that this will always be so until they are equal members of it. It is this very fact which prevents Germany joining it. A German newspaper recently said of it
" Tho League of Nations, which is intended to perpetuate our existing frontiers, the foreign control of our rivers, the limitation of our sovereignty, the alienation of German territory and German populations, and the artificial isolation of our AuStrie.n brothers is not something for us to strive after ; it is just as much our enemy as those other enemies with whom wo have been at war."
We do not pretend this is fair, but we do say that the only way to eradicate such feelings is, by hook or by crook, to include Germany herself in the League.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
