ernment, observers agree, would certainly be followed by other East European nations, and Jewish minorities in countries where anti-Semitism is growing, would be left without any protection by an international authority.
Neville Laski, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Norman Bentwich, former Attorney General of Palestine are closely watching the Assembly’s session, prepared to oppose any measure which would weaken international protection for oppressed minorities.
POLAND NOT ALONE
The proposal for generalization, now sponsored by Poland, has been put forward a number of times by Hungarian, Lithuanian and other governments bound by minority treaties and the minority clauses of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
The position of these governments was set forth characteristically by the Lithuanian representative at the 1925 session of the League. The then premier of Lithuania, M. Glavanauskas, declared that while the minority treaties were “of great service to humanity, they limited the sovereignity of a certain number of states, whereas justice required that all members of the League should be obligated by minority clauses written into the treaties.”
Danger that generalization of minority treaties would result in weakening of protective powers was recently emphasized at the world Jewish conference in Geneva by Dr. Nahum Goldmann, president of the Committee of Jewish Delegations.
The official resolution submitted to the League by the Polish representative at Geneva, E. Raczynski, reads as follows:
“Acting on instructions from my Government, I have the honor to request you, in accordance with Rule 4, paragraph 2, p. d., of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the League of Nations, to place the fol##ing resolution on the agenda of the next session of the Assembly:
“The Assembly of the League of Nations,
“Considering that the minorities treaties at present in force and the declarations on the international protection of minorities made before the Council by certain States are only binding upon some of the Members of the League of Nations, whereas other Members of the League, remain free from any legal undertaking in this respect;
“Being of opinion that such a state of affairs affords an international guarantee to certain minorities only, and leaves the others, which can in no circumstances appeal to the League of Nations, without international protection;
“Considering that such a distinction between protected and non-protected minorities is in contradiction with the sentiment of equity and justice;
“Having regard to the fact that racial, linguistic and religious minorities which are not covered by the present system for the protection of minorities and which have the same moral right to the protection of the League of Nations as the protected minorities are to be found in almost all European and extra – European countries:
“Declares that the present situation in regard to the international protection of minorities is not in harmony with the fundamental principles of international morality, and is of opinion that it should be remedied by the conclusion of a general convention on the protection of minorities, such Convention to provide for the same undertakings on the part of all Members of the League of Nations and to insure international protection for all racial, linguistic and religious minorities;
“Decides to summon for that purpose an international conference consisting of all the Members of the League of Nations, in order to draw up a general Convention on the international protection of minorities; and
“Request#### Council to take the necessary steps to summon that Conference in the near future, and in any case within six months from the close of the proceedings of the present session of the Assembly.”
The decision regarding the Saar, reached by the League Council Saturday, is considered here a signal victory for France which, in a memorandum to the Council made public earlier this week, had demanded protection guarantees for minorities after the January 16 plebiscite.
Emphasizing the gravity of the Saar question, the Council resolved to empower a committee of three to handle problems arising after the plebiscite, as outlined in the French memorandum. The decision is taken to mean that the French proposal regarding protection of the Saar minority populations will be widely considered by the League despite Germany’s opposition.