ITALY AND ETHIOPIA
Warfare Begun.—By October 3 Large Italian forces were reported in Ethiopian territory south of Eritrea, the Emperor Haille Selassie had issued orders for general mobilization, and war in Africa was already an actuality. In the period immediately preceding, the diplomatic efforts of England, France, and Italy were centered primarily on limiting the conflict by assurances from Italy to the other powers concerned, and also by assurances from them as to the character of the League sanctions to be imposed in the event of hostilities. Application of sanctions in such an event appeared inevitable in view of the unwontedly courageous action taken by the League Council on September 26. On that date, the council reached the decision to proceed under Art. XV of the Covenant, drafting plans for a peaceful settlement as required by paragraph 2 of that Article, and in the meantime binding itself to apply economic or other sanctions should either party in the dispute open hostilities within three months’ time. The Council refrained from complying with Emperor Haille Selassie’s request that League observers be stationed on the frontiers to fix responsibility for hostile moves.
For convenience of reference the complicated League and other diplomatic moves during September are here briefly summarized:
Oil Concession Cancelled.—At the close of August diplomatic apple baskets were upset by the news that Emperor Haille Selassie had granted to a British promoter, Francis W. Hackett, vast oil concessions in eastern Ethiopia, the assumption being that British interests were involved. The American State Department was embarrassed to learn subsequently that the concession was controlled by the Standard- Vacuum Oil Co., but was able to announce on September 4 that, after pressure from Secretary Hull, the concession had been cancelled.
Ualual Verdict Indecisive.—The arbitration and conciliation committee of five, including Nicolas Politis of Greece as neutral member, announced on September 3 that the evidence was too obscure to permit fixing responsibility for the Ualual clash of last December.
Council Appoints Committee.—At the special session of the League Council opening on September 4, Italy presented a long bill of complaints against Ethiopian barbarism, and the Italian delegation afterward vacated their seats at alleged insults in the Ethiopian reply. The Council then appointed a committee of five, with British, French, Polish, and Turkish representatives, and headed by Salvador de Madariaga of Spain, to seek a peaceful solution.
League Assembly Declarations.—The League Assembly, meeting on September 9, elected Dr. Benes president, and after routine business heard the declaration of Foreign Minister Hoare committing England to “collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression,” and of Premier Laval swinging France a long way toward support of that position. These were followed by a defiant Italian Cabinet communique rejecting any compromise solution.
Committee Plan Rejected.—The plan of the Council’s committee of five submitted on September 18 provided, in brief, for organization of Ethiopian finances, economic development, and other services under four foreign chief advisers (nationality not specified), with recognition of Italy’s special economic interests, and offers of a British or French sea outlet for Ethiopia in return for territorial cessions to Italy. This plan Italy rejected, in guarded and conciliatory language, declaring it inadequate to meet her needs. Her counter-proposals called for possession of western Ethiopia, a sea outlet through Italian territory, and Italian control of the Ethiopian Army.
Britain Reassures Italy.—By an unusual diplomatic move on September 22 the British government assured Italy that British fleet and Army re-enforcements in the Mediterranean were due to the violent Italian press attacks and “implied no aggressive action.” Italy gave similar assurances.
Council Acts Under Art. XV.—Following a report of failure by its committee of five the Council, as already indicated, decided to proceed under Art. XV of the League Covenant.
England Backs Sanctions.—The speech of Foreign Minister Sir Samuel Hoare in the League Assembly session, definitely pledging England to collective action in support of sanctions, was received in France with much satisfaction. But before swinging France back into harmony with British policy, Premier Laval sought a further declaration from England to the effect that her support of sanctions in Africa would mean support in Europe also, and more specifically—although this was not actually put into words—against German expansion. The reply from London on September 29 assured France that the British people stood solidly behind the policy set forth at Geneva, and that this policy was by no means limited to the Italian-Ethiopian conflict. The only qualification was that the words “unprovoked aggression” must be given their full value, that there may be varying degrees of culpabilities, and hence varying action for each particular problem. This reply the French government apparently found satisfactory, but it was troubled later on receiving from England an inquiry as to what the French attitude would be in case of a clash between Italian and British forces in the Mediterranean, in the awkward period between the outbreak of the Ethiopian war and the application of League measures-
Britain vs. Italy.—For England the drift toward war in Africa raised vital and intensely difficult problems. On the one hand, Italy’s advance in the Mediterranean, with control of Libya and impending control of Ethiopia, not only encircled Britain’s position in Egypt but threatened her hold on Mediterranean communications with her eastern empire- Indeed it seems to have been the dispatch of Italian troops to Libya that suddenly stiffened British opposition. The task of holding Premier Mussolini in check, however, was made increasingly difficult by French support for Italy, given more freely in consequence of resentment at the Anglo-German naval pact. And the task was further complicated by the limitations placed on British sea control in the Mediterranean in consequence of recent developments in air and torpedo warfare. England’s feeling that she must nevertheless meet the challenge was manifested by the fleet re-enforcements sent to the Mediterranean—moves of perhaps incalculable importance to England’s future.
On the other hand, as pointed out by Mr. Frank H. Simonds in an excellent article in the October Current History, the weakening of Italy, or her preoccupation in an African adventure,
will certainly serve as a signal for Hitler to begin his long premeditated march down the Danube. With Italy eliminated as a military force in Europe, the arrival of German Continental hegemony would seem probable, if not certain. In such circumstance Hitler would be no more likely than Napoleon to avoid a clash with Great Britain.
The situation presented a kind of dilemma for the people as well as the government of Britain, and there was for a time a trend away from the idea of enforcing sanctions as it became clearer that collective action might mean fighting. In England and throughout the world, in fact, recent events have brought a sharper realization that world order is not to be attained without risks and sacrifices, and will not come by joining the nations in a happy circle to the tune of “We renounce war.”
GERMANY AND NORTHERN EUROPE
New Nazi Decrees.—One of the first acts of the German Reichstag, gathered in extraordinary session on September 15, was to waive all ordinary rules of procedure and accept the “policy of leadership,” which meant simply blanket approval of all decrees presented by the Nazi chiefs. Notable among these decrees was an order establishing the swastika banner as the sole national and merchant flag, displacing the old black, white, and red ensign which had heretofore held a position of equality. Members of the Jewish race, however, are not allowed to use the swastika, but may employ the blue and white flag of Zionism. The adoption of the swastika flag was presumably influenced by the Communist attack on this emblem which occurred aboard the steamship Bremen in New York Harbor on July 26, and by the subsequent action of Magistrate Brodsky of New York in freeing those arrested and at the same time denouncing conditions in Germany. The resultant German protests drew from Secretary of State Hull on September 14 an expression of regret that the magistrate went “out of his way to criticize the German government.”
Another decree published at the Reichstag meeting divided the German population into two classes, one consisting of “citizens” (with such rights as the suffrage), and the other of “members,” persons of Jewish race being excluded from the first class. Jews were also barred from marriage or sex relations outside their own race.
In its strife with independent Protestantism, the German government on September 25 made at least a partial surrender by withdrawing support from Reichs Bishop Ludwig Mueller and offering to accept a new bishop and church directorate named by the clergy who have opposed government control. Since this, however, still meant subservience of the church to state dictatorship, the clergy showed little readiness to fall in with the new proposal.
Germans Gain in Memel Vote.— As was true of the recent elections in Danzig, the election of September 29 in the semi-autonomous Memel district took on the aspect of a conflict of nationalities between Germany and Lithuania, the results of which might determine whether or not Germany would take steps toward regaining the territory. Recent suffrage restrictions enacted by the Lithuanian directorate in the district were designed to cut down the ordinary pro-German voting majority of about 80 per cent, but to counteract this the district was flooded with speeches and propaganda from Berlin.
Owing to cumbersome election machinery the election was dragged out over two days, and early returns estimated the pro-German majority as high as 90 per cent. In these circumstances the Lithuanian government, which has indicated readiness for concessions to ensure its continued control of the territory, will no doubt restore a larger measure of self- government. This would satisfy the local population, but might not curb the aroused irredentist fervor in Germany. For Lithuania the port of Memel is an economic necessity, and Lithuanian trade is also essential to the life of Memel, though the recent German policy of excluding agricultural products of the district has also injured its prosperity.
UNITED STATES FOREIGN RELATIONS
Munitions Export Restrictions.— In accordance with Section 2 of the Neutrality Act passed on August 31, the State Department at Washington in September set about the organization of a National Munitions Control Board, consisting of the Secretary of State (chairman) and the Secretaries of War, Navy, Commerce, and the Treasury; and on September 25 the President proclaimed a list of articles to be considered as “arms, ammunition, and instruments of war.” This list, in five categories, includes all rifles over 26.5 caliber, vessels of war of all kinds including aircraft carriers and submarines, and aircraft “designed, adapted, and intended for aerial combat,” as well as engines and other aircraft parts. For the present the list does not include border-line materials, such as cotton, which might or might not be put to military use. All manufacturers and exporters of munitions as named in the list must register with the State Department, paying a fee of $500, after which they may secure licenses for exports of munitions to countries not affected by arms embargoes or other restrictions. Arms exports to Bolivia and Paraguay are now forbidden, and the Neutrality Act provides for an embargo on arms to any nation that may go to war earlier than next March. There are also restrictions on arms exports to China, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
Propaganda Issue Unsettled.—The American State Department’s sharply worded protest to Russia on August 25, declaring “flagrant violations” of noninterference pledges and “serious consequences if these actions were not prevented,” was answered by a Soviet note which, as usual, denied responsibility for acts of the Communist International and on this ground “declined to accept” the protest. The final step of the American government took the form of a public statement pointing out that the Soviet Republic had pledged itself not to permit “persons or groups in its territory to engage in subversive activities against the United States,” and that further violation of the pledge would cause Soviet-American relations to be “seriously impaired.” The American embassy staff at Moscow was reduced, and plans for a new embassy building were halted. As an aftermath, the American Legion in its September convention passed a resolution demanding withdrawal of the recognition accorded last year.
Quezon Philippine President.—The elections in the Philippines in the third week of September made Manuel Quezon first President of the Philippine commonwealth, with a majority of about 350,000 over his chief opponent, General Aguinaldo. President-Elect Quezon promised a conservative policy, favorable to American interests, during his administration, which will begin the 10-year period prior to complete separation. The services of General Douglas MacArthur, former U.S. Army- chief of staff, have been secured to supervise the organization of Philippine national defense.
WORLD PROBLEMS
October Foreign Affairs.—In the October issue of the quarterly Foreign Affairs the editor, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, supplies the leading article on “Power Politics and the Peace Machinery,” in which he takes a rather pessimistic view of the possibility of maintaining world order by collective methods. He writes:
There are the satisfied powers, and powers less satisfied, and powers openly dissatisfied. Those in the first category may be willing to take considerable risks in experimenting with a collective system to uphold the status quo. Those in the second might be brought to tolerate and even support such a system as the lesser of two evils. But the third set of states will join unwillingly, and, as the last four years have demonstrated, each will wait the day when it feels strong enough to disregard its obligations and launch out on a career of conquest.
“American Neutrality,” by Prof. Charles Seymour in the same issue, is an account and in general a defense of the handling of this problem by the Wilson administration in 1914-17. Bruce Hopper, in “Eastward the Course of Soviet Empire,” points out the vast resources of Siberia and the Part it is destined to play in the future of the Soviet Republic. Siberia is estimated to have 80 per cent of the total potential resources of Russia in energy (fuel and water power), 82 per cent of the coal, 28- 40 per cent of the iron, and 60 per cent of the suitable grain land. Speculating on the inevitable eastward movement of Soviet interests and power, the author considers its effect upon the problems of Asia.
The natural economic drain of Outer Mongolia and Sinkiang is into the Soviet Union. And Turkey and Persia, although fervently nationalistic, respond strongly to the pull of the great industrial magnet to the northward. ... Is it to be stabilization or a new direction for the revolutionary momentum?
Among other articles of interest, Andre Géraud (Pertinax) writes bitterly of the Anglo-German naval treaty, declaring in effect that Britain betrayed her pledges to France, that Germany is not fully restricted to a 35 per cent limitation, and that the agreement “spells naval armament race between Germany and France and also between Germany and Soviet Russia.” In “Junkers to the Fore Again,” by Karl Brant, former professor of economics in the University of Berlin, the belief is expressed that the Junkers are the real power dominating the present Hitler regime, as evidenced by the position of Schacht as dictator of economics and finance, Count Schwerin von Krosigk in control of the budget and public works, and the renewed influence of the army with its dominant Junker element. Hitler’s chief concern centers around foreign relations, and his policy here also, according to the author, “follows the Junker trend.”
There is a study of Pilsudski, by one of his old associates in revolution; and, among the sketches of Ethiopian problems, one on “The Suez Canal in Time of War,” arguing that England would not let legal impediments prevent her from controlling it so as to meet impending danger.