FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 177, 28 June 1937, Page 2

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SURVEY BY MR EDEN. (British Official Wireless.) Received June 26, 12.28 p.m. RUGBY, June 25. Mr R. A. Eden, in the foreign affairs debate in the House, referring to the Far East situation, said he thought ttrere were certain definite and encouraging 6igns of improvement. Conversations had been proceeding with the representatives of the Japanese Government on the possibility of a better Anglo-Japanese understanding and there was hope that it might be possible at a very early date to begin an examination of the concrete proposals. He renewed the assurance that an Anglo-Japa-nese understanding would not be effected at the expense, of China. “Our relations with the Chinese Government are excellent,’’ he said. Referring to the proposal for a Pacific pact of non-aggression, Mr Eden said it was a matter which must be approached with some circumspection, and it might be unwise to attempt any negotiation until they knew a little more clearly what were the views of the other Governments, after which they would bo in a position to decide whether any definite proposals could be made with a reasonable chance of success. Mr Eden, dealing with Central Europe, declared: Arms may be used in bringing help to any victim of aggression where, in our judgment, it would be appropriate under the terms of the Covenant. I use the word “may” because there is no automatic obligation to take military action. This is the definition accepted by this country and generally understood bv the nations of Europe. POSITION IN SPAIN. The major part of the speech, however, was devoted to Spain. Referring to the Labour Party’s demand for the termination of the non-intervention policy, he said the alternative was unlimited competition in arms and men, with the danger of a. clash between outside Powers. He contended that the Labour Party was miscalculating and mistaken in the idea that lifting the non-intervention embargoes would benefit the Valencia Government. While he admitted that the British Government was not satisfied with the working of the non-intervention agreement he reminded the House that it had gone a long way to check assistance to either 6ide from outside a-nci declared that there was no reason whatever why the existing schemes should not be made to work satisfactorily. ... , , After stressing Britain’s determination not to participate in a naval demonstration off the Spanish coast without a preliminary inquiry, he said that the lesson of the events was that Europe and the world would always be at the mercy of an international incident until there was general acceptance of the rule of law. In conclusion. Mr Eden said lie vas not going to contemplate a breakdown in the non intervention policy until, in consultation with France, they had seen what the possibilities were in the new and more difficult situation confronting them. The Government was acutelv conscious of the clangers to peace'in the abandonment of non-inter-vention and intended to persevere by every means in its power with a view to preserving the peace of Europe. The 'Prime Minister (Mr Chamberlain) made an appeal for caution patience and restraint in the interests of European peace. The situation uas serious, lie said, but not hopeless. There was not a single Government which wanted to see a European war. Mr Chamberlain continued that the policv of the British Government had been consistently directed to the maintenance of peace in Europe by confining the war to Spain. He reiterated Archibald Sinclair’s contention that we should be glad of the restraint shown bv Germany in connection with the Leipzig incident. Two practical steps were now called for. One was to fill the gap in the naval control scheme and the other to obtain the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Sl m” C. R. Attlee (Leader of the Labour Party) following Mr Chamberlain, said he was most disappointed because the Prime Minister seemed misconceived as to the issue. The essential question was whether the rule of law or lawlessness should prevail international affairs. The massacre of the Spanish by foreign forces of airmen showed the farce of non-intervention. The fall of Bilbao was partly due to the blockade to which Britain was a party Non-intervention had faded therefore it must end. Jlr mrea Roberts (Liberal) .in moving thei reduction of the Foreign Office vote, sa.d that the fall of Bilbao was due to the Basques’ inability to buy arms while aeroplanes and munitions were reaching the insurgents. POINTS OF VIEW. LIBERAL AND LABOUR. Received June 26. 12 noon. LONDON. June 2o-

Sir Archibald Sinclair, in opening the debate on the Foreign Office estimates in the House of Commons, hoped that the Government would derive encouragement from the Imperial Conference and pursue a more active League policy. The best way of establishing European peace would be an understanding with Germany, but Germany must understand that we will not sacrifice old friends for the sake of new ones. “If Germany is prepared to join in disarmament and accept arbitration in international disputes, said Sir Archibald, “we shall pay any price for her friendship.” . ~ . Mr G. Lansbury (Labour) urged that the basis of the European tension and the economic issue of the Spanish war was not Fascism and • Communism hut the raw materials that Italy and Germany needed. Mr Lloyd George (Liberal) said it non-intervention was not enforceable they should wind up a fraudulent pact and let both sides buy war material where they could. The motion to reduce the vote was defeated by 157 votes to BG. The debate was adjourned.