BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE
[To the Editor of TuE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—A review in your issue of January 22nd, for the views in which, I presume, the editor is not responsible, prompts me to enquire how far in your opinion the British Government can be held responsible for the failure of the League of Nations in the case of Abyssinia. The obligation to take collective action must often, it seems, result in collective inaction. Eloquent speeches at Geneva in favour of drastic measures may save a Foreign Secretary's reputation in this country, but they do not seem to be the best method of achieving some useful end. Apparently, we have parted with the liberty, which we formerly enjoyed (as in the cases of South America, Greece and Italy), of favouring one side or the other. Must we resign ourselves to this disadvantage in view of the advantages which the League provides ?—Yours faithfully, F. C. GATES.
Cade House, Heathfield, Sussex.
[We have only parted with the liberty to " favour one side or the other " in the sense that we have agreed to " favour " a nation unjustly attacked against one which unjustly attacks. How far the British Government can be held responsible for the League's failure in Abyssinia is a large question. The Hoare-Laval deal certainly ended any hope of American co-operation.—En. The Spectator.]
Previous page
