THE ETHIOPIAN CONFLICT
Sanctions Against Italy.—One significant effect of the League’s action against Italy in October was its proof, in the words of Premier Baldwin, that the “League is still alive.” Had it failed here, as in the earlier Manchurian crisis, it would have ceased to exist as a factor in international affairs. But the adoption of punitive measures against a major power, whatever the motives behind their adoption and whatever the outcome, gives a new significance to the League and its activities. This holds despite the fact that four important nations—the United States, Germany, Japan, and Brazil—are outside the League fold. At a final session of the League Assembly on November 2, the decision was reached to bring all four of the adopted sanctions into full effect against Italy by November 18.
The process by which the sanctions were worked out was briefly as follows. The League Council on October 5 completed a report on the Ethiopian situation, as called for by Art. XV of the Covenant, and on the same date adopted a report declaring that a state of war existed and that Italy was the aggressor. On October 10 the League Assembly approved this report. Of the 54 nations present, 51 approved, Italy voted in the negative, and only Austria and Hungary made statements explaining their unwillingness to accept the report. A committee of 17 on sanctions was then appointed and 4 proposals were approved: (1) that embargoes on arms to Ethiopia be lifted, and an embargo on arms, munitions, and implements of war be applied to Italy alone, the list of such articles being the same as that already prepared by the United States for the same purpose; (2) that a credit blockade be established, cutting off the Italian government and citizens from all foreign loans or credits; (3) that the League nations agree not to purchase goods from Italy; (4) that they agree not to export to Italy certain key products useful in war, such as oil, cotton, copper, iron, etc.; and (5), that they pledge mutual support in minimizing and distributing losses resultant from the sanctions. By November 1 these proposals had received almost unanimous approval from League states, 51 accepting proposal 1, 50 proposal 2,49 proposals 3 and 4, and 41 proposal 5. Only Switzerland made serious reservations regarding purchase of Italian exports.
Franco-British Co-operation.—By the close of October co-operation between England and France was fairly well reestablished, and experts were arranging for better co-ordination of naval moves in the Mediterranean. Friction, however, arose earlier in the month when France hedged on the question of naval aid for England and insisted that mutual assistance should be placed on a broader basis, i.e., that if either power felt the need to take military, naval, or air measures in preparation to execute duties under the League pact or Locarno treaties, it would enter into consultations with the other power, and that “if either of the two powers is attacked on account of such measures after the consultation and its resultant agreement, the other power will render assistance.” Agreement was reached on these general lines.
Meantime, to ease the tension between England and Italy, France suggested withdrawal of two British battleships from the Mediterranean in return for withdrawal of two Italian divisions from Italy. This bargain still hung fire at the close of the month. Peace efforts also continued, with evidence that Italy, under League pressure, was more amenable to reason, but that France and Britain were not ready to go beyond the terms offered earlier at Geneva.
New American Neutrality.—In reply to the League inquiry of October 26 asking the policy of the United States and other non-member nations regarding the League sanctions, Secretary Hull replied for the United States by citing the steps already taken in the Ethiopian conflict. These have been notably as follows:
(1) The President, in accordance with the Neutrality Act of last August, on October 5 declared an embargo on the export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to either belligerent.
(2) This proclamation automatically put into effect another provision of the Neutrality Act making it unlawful for any American vessel to carry goods thus embargoed to any belligerent port, or to any neutral port for transhipment. In other words, the United States as a neutral forbids her merchant vessels to cany contraband to belligerents—a new departure in international practice.
(3) American citizens were warned by the President on October 5 that travel on merchant vessels of belligerents would be wholly at their own risk; i.e., if Americans suffered loss of life or injury through the war-time destruction of such vessels, legally or illegally, the United States government, by implication, would take no action.
(4) The President on October 10 warned Americans that transactions of any character, with either belligerent, would be at their own risk; and in a later statement on October 30 he declared in substance that the American people would not care for “abnormally increased profits” of war-time trade “nor would they wish the struggles on the battlefield to be prolonged because of profits accruing to a comparatively small number of American citizens. Accordingly the American government is keeping informed as to all shipments consigned for export to both belligerents.”
Of these government pronouncements commentators noted that they mean an almost complete reversal of our traditional policy favoring freedom of sea trade, especially in non-contraband, in war time as well as in peace. Protection is withdrawn from American trade of any sort with a nation involved in war. In the second place, they largely relieve the anxiety of Great Britain or other league powers as to our attitude in case of a blockade or interdiction of trade with Italy, imposed either by the League or by any nation. Our trade would be given no protection.
It has been remarked that the policy is more clearly designed to keep the United States out of war than to prevent war, since by its application to both belligerents the United States surrenders a weapon that might be used against an aggressor. Furthermore it establishes a precedent, so that in future wars removal of protection from trade with only one belligerent would certainly be regarded as an unfriendly act. Furthermore, it might give an overwhelming advantage to the belligerent dominant on the sea. In general, it would tend to encourage economic self-dependency and discourage foreign trade for all nations, for a nation not self- dependent would be at a tremendous disadvantage.
In closing his note to the League, Secretary’ Hull gave assurances that the United States undertakes at all times to not only exercise its moral influence in favor of peace throughout the world, but to contribute in every practicable way within the limits of our foreign policy to that end. It views with sympathetic interest the individual or concentrated efforts of other nations to preserve peace or to localize or shorten the duration of war.
ENGLAND AND THE COMMONWEALTHS
Britain Calls Naval Parley.—On October 24 the British government issued invitations to the signatories of the Washington and London naval treaties to meet at London on December 2 in another effort to reach some sort of limitation arrangement for the period after the expiration of the present treaties, December 31, 1935. England has already launched her own rearmament program, but would like a reduction of battleships to 26,000 tons and 12-inch guns, as well as some general adjustment of programs for the next six years. The United States will be represented by Admiral Standley as naval expert and presumably by either Ambassador-at-Large Norman Davis or by Ambassador Bingham. Japan will send Admiral Osami Nagano, who represented her in the disarmament negotiations at Geneva, and probably Naotake Sato, Ambassador to France. The Japanese response to the invitation indicated a falling in with the British idea that England can perhaps justify a larger and more diversified fleet, but that America’s claims should be viewed in the light of her “greater geographical security.” Little was expected in the way of accomplishments at the conference, and still less if there should be injected into it certain extraneous problems, such as “better redistribution of the world’s natural resources.”
British Elections in November.— After assembling on October 22 for a three-day discussion of foreign policy and the Ethiopian conflict, the British Parliament was notified of the Baldwin government’s decision to call a general parliamentary election on November 14. The election was called primarily to secure a popular mandate supporting the ministry’s policy of sanctions against Italy and increased armaments necessitated by the “risks of peace.” “I warn the country,” Premier Baldwin declared, “that there are risks of peace, and I say deliberately that, while I am prepared to pursue that policy with my heart and soul, I will not be responsible for the conduct of any government of this country at the present time if I am not given power to remedy these deficiencies that have accrued in our defense services since the war.” Subsequently, in his first campaign speech on October 25, he expressed the view that “if sanctions of the most severe kind are imposed, that will lead inevitably to blockade,” the burden of which would fall on the British Navy. Mr. Baldwin added, however, that England would “never go into a blockade unless it were assured beforehand of the attitude of the United States.”
The date of the election was regarded as well chosen to secure support for the conservatives from the 6,000,000 citizens who in recent press polls had declared themselves overwhelmingly in favor of full cooperation with the League of Nations. However opposed they may be to arms and war, these voters would surely uphold the government in its present course, especially at a date when the possible difficulties or failure of that course had not yet been revealed. Predictions indicated a safe though reduced majority for the Baldwin government and a subsequent reorganization of the Cabinet in which Winston Churchill might return to his old post at the head of the Admiralty. In a speech on October 24, strongly supporting the government policies, Mr. Churchill emphasized German rearmament as the chief present menace, and a factor “affecting the movement of politics and diplomacy in every country of Europe.” Both Italy’s aggression and French hesitancy in recent weeks he attributed to the new situation created by a heavily armed Reich.
Canada Votes Liberal.—The Canadian elections of October 7 resulted in an overwhelming defeat for the Conservative government of Premier Richard Bennet by the Liberal party under the leadership of former Premier Mackenzie King. The Liberals gained over 170 seats in the Lower House out of a total of 245. While primarily an upset due to the grievances of depression, the election presumably means that the new Mackenzie King government will undertake fulfillment of its campaign pledges for more vigorous steps toward a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, a mutually beneficial settlement of the tariff conflict with Japan, and a revision of the Ottawa trade agreements so as to secure a better market for Canadian exports. No doubt also, as in the United States, the government will swing leftward to gain support from the rising radical elements in the West.
Death of Arthur Henderson.—The death of Arthur Henderson on October 20, at the age of 72, removed from English public life one of its most highly respected leaders. Long prominent in the Liberal party, and chief organizer of its victory in 1929, he did excellent service as foreign minister under Ramsay Macdonald, and afterward as President of the Disarmament Conference fought indefatigably in a cause doomed finally to failure. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year.
EUROPEAN POLITICS
Greece Restores Monarchy.—Arrangements were fully completed in Greece for the return of King George to Athens in early November, soon after the National plebiscite, which, under pressure from the Kondylis dictatorship, was expected to confirm without question the steps already taken to end the republic. The restoration was preceded by a military coup d’etat engineered by the dominant monarchist faction under the leadership of Minister of War George Kondylis. This forced out the Tsaldaris Ministry, set up Kondylis as regent pending the return of King George, and secured from the rump Parliament, boycotted by the Republicans since the election of last June, a vote of acclamation abolishing the republic and reviving the monarchical constitution of 1911. Beneath the surface in Greece, however, and especially in Thrace and the islands, there is doubtless considerable opposition to the forces now in control, as evidenced by the fact that only 98 members of the Chamber approved the change, while 235 absentees were supporters of the ousted Premier Tsaldaris.
George II, the returning King, was overthrown by the Pangalos dictatorship in 1923, after 15 months on the throne. He is a son of King Constantine and 45 years of age.
Starhemberg Coup in Austria.—The sudden Cabinet reorganization in Austria on October 17 marked the elimination of Major Emil Fey as a factor in Austrian politics, and the ascendancy of Prince von Starhemberg, leader of the Austrian fascists. Though Dr. Kurt Schuschnigg retained the chancellorship, Starhemberg as vice-chancellor was regarded as the power behind the new government. One of the first steps of the reorganized ministry was to unite the various party “armies” in the country—Catholic Storm Troops, Freiheitsbund, Fey’s own Vienna Heinwehr, etc.—into a single state militia or Austrian Heimatschutz, in reality merging them into the Starhemberg fascist forces. A corresponding unification of youth organizations was accomplished, on the basis of an evident agreement with the Vatican. Rumor even suggested that a new Starhemberg dynasty might take the place of the Hapsburgs on the Austrian throne.
Reich Seeks Church Peace.—At the close of October the new German church directorate of 8 members, appointed by Reich church minister Hans Kerri, proclaimed a general amnesty decree for clerical offenders. All pastors were reinstated, fines returned, and disciplinary measures suspended. With this new conciliatory policy of the Nazi government, assurances were given of the early removal of Reich Bishop Muller, and restoration of a larger measure of religious freedom. In an earlier proclamation of October 17, Minister Kerri declared that religious bodies could avoid difficulties simply by keeping out of politics, and never putting themselves in conflict with the power and policies of the supreme National Socialist State. The new German paganism need not be taken as a serious menace, and, as Herr Kerri pointed out, the Jewish question would soon cease to be an issue with the exclusion or elimination of the Jews as a factor in German life. Despite these fair words, German Protestants as well as Catholics still realized that acceptance of the new policy meant surrender to state control.
FAR EAST
Renewed Pressure on China.—Most Chinese observers saw a connection between the preoccupation of the Western powers in Ethiopia and the more aggressive moves of Japan to push her commercial and political predominance not only in the five northern provinces of China but also in the southern provinces controlled by Canton. In the north, Koreans and Japanese have flooded the country with smuggled goods in defiance of the Chinese customs regulations and officials, and Japanese military leaders have shown a new solicitude for the Chinese masses, so badly governed by Nanking. “Unless fundamental changes are instituted,” declared General Isogai, Japanese attaché at Nanking, “the five northern provinces must be entirely alienated from the central government. New Japanese demands on October 29 reiterated the three requirements—economic co-operation, suppression of anti-Japanese agitation, and prevention of the spread of communism. Between Japanese pressure and anti-Japanese sentiment in China, the lot of Nanking officials is not enviable. At a meeting of Nationalist leaders on November 1, Premier Wang Ching-Wei was shot by a Chinese newspaper writer and severely wounded. The meeting was for the purpose of considering the Japanese demands, and also in anticipation of the Kuomintang Congress scheduled for November 12.
In the south, conflict arose at Swatow over the heavy levies by Canton officials on rice and other goods imported by Japanese traders, the Japanese regarding these taxes as in violation of tariff agreements. Following the seizure of a smuggled rice cargo, ten Japanese destroyers entered Swatow, landed 120 marines, and demanded apologies and damages. Before the middle of the month a solution was reached not altogether satisfactory to Japan, since it involved sale of the rice but subsequent collection of the tax from the Chinese puchaser, and no apparent assurance against future collections. In general, Japan is forcing her trade interests in this region, and in Fukien province, north of Kwantung, her influence is already predominant in the army and provincial government. There are 20,000 Japanese, mostly armed, in Amoy City alone.