A. —sa.

1926. In 1935, the year of the imposition of sanctions, Germany was not exercising the rights of membership, but the other Powers were still members. To-day only one of those four Powers, France, is an effective member of the League, and, moreover, the frontier of Germany with Switzerland is greatly extended by reason of the Anschluss. No one can deny that the political conditions of 1938 are vastly different from those of 1935, and it is quite understandable that the Swiss Government and people should be greatly concerned. The matter was brought before the Council at the public meeting held on the morning of the 11th May, when the President invited the Swiss representative, M. Motta, to take his seat at the Council table, and called upon him to present the Swiss case. This M. Motta did very effectively, but, his speech covered little more than the ground covered by the memorandum. He appealed for a reconsideration of Switzerland's special position, and for a declaration that complete neutrality on the part of Switzerland was consistent with membership of the League of Nations. At the conclusion of the speech, M. Litvinoff, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, spoke a few words, drawing attention to a legal aspect of the case, and he questioned the competence of the Council to make a final decision on a question of such magnitude. The President then announced that the statement of the Swiss representative and M. Litvinoff's remarks would be examined by the Rapporteur, M. Sandler (Sweden), who had been appointed at a preceding private meeting of the Council. Before the question came up for final decision by the Council there was an exchange of views between members, but no official records were kept as the Council was not sitting in public or even in private, and all we have to consider is the report (the third draft) which emerged from the hands of the Rapporteur. It may be described as a compromise in form, based on amendments suggested during the exchange of views. On the question of according complete neutrality within the framework of the League for which Switzerland asked there was great sympathy with the Swiss people, and although in certain circumstances two States represented on the Council might have given a negative vote, unanimity was reached with the abstention of these two States. Many difficulties had to be surmounted, not least the difficulty of endeavouring to avoid what might be quoted as a precedent, and the position was complicated by the cleavage of opinion in connection with the reform of the Covenant! Merely to have taken note of the Swiss position without at the same time announcing a decision by the 'Council might have proved disastrous and, apart from amendments to the report as originally drafted, the resolution was strengthened in such a way as to leave no doubt (1) that the special position of Switzerland is recognized by the Council and (2) that Switzerland will not be invited to put into operation the provisions of the Covenant relating to sanctions. Should the question of sanctions ever arise it will not be necessary for Switzerland to plead her special position and to obtain a decision in her favour which might react unfavourably on other States. She will take no part in the deliberations. I do not think it is necessary to analyse the Rapporteur's report, Document C. 191 (1), M. 103 (1), 1938, Y. It came before the Council in public session on the afternoon of the 14th May. After the introduction of the report by M. Sandler, M. Motta made a statement to the effect that the Federal Council of Switzerland accepted unreservedly the motion which was about to be put to the vote, and he thanked the Council for its consideration. Several members of the Council spoke, and their remarks are recorded in the minutes. I desire to draw attention to the speech of M. Litvinoff, and especially to that part dealing with mutual obligations. For instance, Article 10 of the Covenant reads : " The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League." The position of Switzerland is clearly defined : she is granted perpetual neutrality under the resolution of the Council, but what would be the position of the other members of the League in the event of Switzerland's being attacked ? Well, Switzerland has not renounced the rights which the Covenant accords her. It should be mentioned, however, that the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland does not rest merely on the decision of the Council : it is guaranteed by other treaties ; and if Switzerland maintains a correct attitude, and such treaties do not become mere scraps of paper, she should be reasonably secure. The difficulties of the Swiss have to be recognized, and were recognized, by the Council, but the situation as a whole is not satisfactory. M. Litvinoff abstained from voting when the resolution was put to the vote, as did also Mr. Wellington Koo, the representative of China, who stated in the course of his speech in the Council: — " The Chinese Government holds the view that sanctions under Article 16 of the Covenant, other than military sanctions, are not optional but obligatory. No member is entitled to divest itself of these obligations by a unilateral declaration of its intention. Since these obligations have been assumed collectively no discharge from them can be effected except by a collective act of approval. The Chinese Government attaches the greatest importance to this established principle of the Covenant, and any doubt thrown upon its intangibility is a cause of anxiety to it lest the very foundation of the League of Nations should be undermined. " In view of the tendency now current in certain States members of the League of Nations to abandon their obligations under the Covenant by a unilateral declaration of their intention, the Chinese Government finds it the more necessary, so far as it is in its power, to safeguard the sanctity of the Covenant." It was represented to us, on behalf of the responsible organization of journalists accredited to the League of Nations, that some apprehension was felt concerning the liberty of press correspondents in Geneva reporting the proceedings of, and matters relative to, the League. In supporting the

4