A WORD FOR THE GENEVA PROTOCOL
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The important debate in the House of Commons on the Geneva Protocol, convincing as it no doubt was with regard to the fatal defects in that particular instrument for world peace, was nevertheless somewhat disappointing in its indications of future policy.
The possibility of a German Pact will thrill idealists, more because of its witness to a wonderfully improved atmosphere in international relations, in perhaps the most difficult quarter, than because of its solution of the whole problem. Indeed, that problem is European, and as Lord Hartington so wisely said, the new proposals are of the greatest value, only in so far as they can be moulded into the framework of some fresh pan-European " arrangement." I believe many people are convinced that a third attempt Must be made to tackle this problem on an " all-in," as opposed to an " alliance," basis ; for that reason I cannot but regret that the admirable advice of. Major Hills in his letter to the Times the other day for delay and full Empire -consultation was not accepted, in order to facilitate the task of devising an alternative without thereby denying the impracticability of the dead Protocol.
Clearly any future " Protocol " must be based on dis- armament—to use the term in a relative sense—on unanimity of decisions, on the ineligibility of matters of " local " juris- diction (i.e., immigration, &c.) for discussion, and on the State having entirely within its own domain for deter- mination the form and extent of its contribution as to " sanctions " or force of arms. These essential qualifications should make acquiescence by the Dominions no longer an impossibility. It may also be surmised that the varying and even contradictory interpretations of the Protocol on these three matters were largely responsible for the sense of danger the proposals as a whole engendered.
There are, however, certain objections to the old Protocol which in my view are not valid and need not and indeed to a certain extent cannot be excluded from any future arrangement. It is said that the Protocol was based on arma- ments and war. It may, however, be pointed out that trade " sanctions " have first to function, and it is no part of the proposals that a further stage should be reached. It is commonly said that the execution of such " sanctions " by a blockade would immediately precipitate hostilities with
the U.S.A. As to this, I incline to the view of Lord Grey of Fallodon that that great Democracy would be unlikely to take steps to hinder the execution of a mandate of all the nations belonging to the League, even if it conflicted with the sectional and illusory interests of their trade ; nor would a Congress, elected by popular vote, be likely to embark upon a war on such grounds. Rather would they not be inclined to feel such a denouement to be a strong incentive to join the League ?
On the general issue, I think Lord Chamwood—ro less an expert on American mentality than Lord Grey—is correct in his diagnosis of the American outlook, as shown in his
letter to the Times last November, when he wrote that the people of the United States " despise the rather grovelling anxiety of foreigners for their august approval and support. Few things could be more harmful. Fear of friction with the U.S.A. is in every way lamentable."
As to the " destructive criticisms " of the Committee of Imperial Defence, I fully agree with Major Hills and others that such purely military objections are so wide as to embrace any form of security proposal for Europe, and should be weighed in conjunction with the problem in its broadest aspects.
The commonest criticism, however, is that in this or that eventuality the scheme would not operate, and would in fact completely break down. Let it ! This is no flaw, except to the visionary, oblivious of the realities of the European " tangle."
Peace for the world's democracies can only be reached by new methods. If Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's tenure of the Foreign Office had any claim to recognition, it was in the " outward and visible sign " of the new order, as shown by a photograph of him in the Times last summer, sitting in a field on the grass, in breeches and with a stick and pipe, discussing security with M. Herriot. This triviality typifies an attitude vital for world peace. It is not through the gateway of " salaams " and top hats that we shall get down to real business, with all the cards on the table, but through the liaison of people, bred more in what should be the atmo- sphere of the Ministry of Labour. In fact, I would regard a successful Minister of Labour as securing his natural pro- motion at the Foreign Office. The diplomacy of the Novel and of Foreign Office " audiences " is not going to give us a new spirit, but is going to perpetuate the old. It should, however, be made quite clear that the new diplomacy does not involve what some people understand by " open " diplomacy, since, if all the cards are to be on the table, negotiations must take place in confidence.
I believe that the country as a whole has complete trust in Mr. Chamberlain's ability to steer such a course ; he is a French scholar, and •we are told he admires the French people. Under what finer auspices could these post-War ideals be put in motion, backed by a confidence based on reasonable Parliamentary security ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We regret that we have been compelled slightly to shorten Lord Sandon's striking letter. It is very interesting to us to find among the " Progressive " members of the Unionist Party agreement with our opinion that the Protocol was too severely condemned and that there are parts of it which may yet be salved. We admit, of course, that as a whole the Protocol was most rightly rejected, but we think that when, for the purposes of arbitration, " aggression " has to be defined, important pieces of the Protocol may spring to life again. Lord Hartington's speech in the House of Commons debate aroused much interest, and we are glad to have this oppor- tunity of putting on record what Lord Sandon would no doubt have said to the same effect if he had been there.— ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
