There is much division by opinion on the question as to how far the League of Nations may go in enforcing its decree. The situation facing the body today, one which is complicated by the problem of persecuted Jewry in Germany, the possibility of the Jews feeling sledge hammer anti-Semitism in Austria and similar troubles in other countries, makes optimists cynical.
Of paramount importance is the status of the Jews and other minority people in the countries where they have made their homes. To the League, which has given guarantees of their rights, the world looks for action when this guarantes is violated. Difficult indeed is the duty of the great peace body, which is essentially a voluntary association and must always keep in mind that if one of its members is offended, the member will resign. Japan and Germany are cases in point. True, their resignation was condemned by public opinion but the prestige of the League undoubtedly was undermined.
It is clear that the League finds it rather difficult to take a decisive stand even if it is demanded by a majority of members. The painful question of the sovereign rights of each constituent state versus the quasti-superior rights of the League as a governing body, is always painfully in evidence and prevents it from carrying out its noblest and best intentions. Sudying the Geneva negotiations, one cannot but ragard as a corroboration of the adage so aptly expressed by Goethe: “The Germans are a remarkable people so worthy in trifies, and so miserably disregardful when it comes to big things !” The League of Nations is undoubtedly worthy as a whole but when some of its constituents are considered, it can lay no claim to esteem.
LEAGUE INEFFECTIVE ?
In view of this, the League is not in a position, even when the situation insistently demands it, to act as it would like to and as it should. Hence, the dragged out agenda, the appointment of numerous committees and sub-committees, the resort, in many cases, to tabling one matter or another, in the hope that time will prove an ally of the League. Like many other hopes, this “procratination hope” of the League of Nations very often fails to materialize. What is more, these delays and postponements cause, not infrequently, complications which probably would not have arisen at all had each and every problem been faced squarely as soon as it presented itself.
Experence has shown that the League stande no chance whatsoever to accomplish anything in questions concerning the great powers. Likewise, the League is practically powerless in questions of lesser importance even where only one small member state is involved. On the other hand, the League may prove quite successful in matters that have the unconditional support of one great power or where the unanimous vote of a full quorum is not required. Such cases are rarc, however. In other words, it is very seldom that a great power takes a decisive stand in a matter that does not concern it directly and very few questions arise in which a simple majority vote is constitutional.
WHERE LEAGUE IS STRONG
Whenever matters arise requiring drastic measures against an insignificant member state, the {SPAN}#eneva{/SPAN} institution proves quite a {SPAN}#{/SPAN} instrument, Should, say, Liberia, or Uruguay, Albania, or Hungary transgress against the letter of international comity, it may be safely assumed that the League would find it in its power to bring the delinquent to book. The reason is that these countries are too dependent on the world’s public opinion to dare rebel or {SPAN}#hreaten{/SPAN} to resign from the League. Its power it also great, at least theoretically, where it possesses supervisory or sovereign rights. The mandates are, in theory, under the supervision of the League, the individual mandatory powers being but instruments for caarying out the League’s directives. In reality, however, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations is nothing but an illusion. It is a matter of common knowledge that the mandatory power do practically as they please with the lands or regions entrusted to them.
The position of the League is somewhat firmer in the case where it exercises its sovereign rights and has the power to appoint commissoners for a certain definite term and to reappiont them or to apport others to take their place. This is true of Danzig and the Sarr Region. But even here, what with all its “sovereign” rights, the League has an exception to record in the case of Memel which was seized by Latvia and has been, since then, in spite of the original decision of the League, in Latvia’s possesstion.
From a regal standpoint, the position of the League seems strongest in the Saar Region. The League makes full use of its sovereign rights there, appoints provisional govering body in accordance with its own views and, finally, has the right, after due consideration of the wishes of the population, to decide the future destinies of the Region by a simple majority vote of its membership. The League is thus empowered, to see to it that, insofar as it is authorized by its membership, the spirit in which the League was founded be strictly observed-namely, that peace, protection of minorities, safety for the weaker elements and the prevention of abuses of any kind be taken care of. Should the League be confronted some day with the problem of making a final decision concerning the Saar Region, it will be in a position, not being handicapped by any articles of its constitution, to enforce its fundamental principles. Nor will it see itself contribute, by tolerance of inaction, to a single innabitant’s of the Saar Region suffering slightest deprivation of his present tegal status. The League of Nations will thus be forced to take measures to assure for instance, that the Jews living in the Saar Region, should it happen to come under the domination of Hitler’s Germany, are not deprived of a single ritht or privilege, contrary to the situation of their brethren in the Germany of today.
THE BIG STICK
There are still other cases where the League could make its influence felt. Should, let us say, Austria, which under the pressure brought to bear by the anti-Semitic movement, contemplate depriving the Jews de facto, of their rights, appear before the Finance Committee of the League to apply for a new loan, the League possesses the factual if not the legal right to enlighten Austria’s representatives in no uncertain terms as to the status of the Jews within its boundaries, according to the expectations of the League. A prospective borrower may be reqrired to comply with the standards of the lender. Politics is, after all, not a drawing room pastime and is not conducted in the spirit of books on etiquette. The political game is of a very sober character and is played with each particpant to the best of his ability and strategic position. It is understandable, though regrettable, that the League tries to avoid incurring the displeasure of a great power, but it would b both inexplicable and illogical and in flagrant contradiction of its principles were the League of Nations, where it has the power, fail to do all it can to preserve or prevent what would militate againts its very raison d’etre.
From the foregoing, it seems to be clear what constitutional dfficulties lie in the way of the League of Nations when it comes to carrying out its decisions. which is often as not made impossible. Only in those cases, where the united public oponion of entire world prevails, all, constituents of the League see themselves compelled to take it into account and abstain from betraying the principles of the League of Nations associations in the various individual lands belonging to the League. Should these, through alertness and concerted actions succeed in working up a unified public opinion, they would pave a way for the League to act as it should. Supported by public opinion, the League will not alone be able to prevent injustice, but will also find it within its power to take the initiative in replacing wrong by right.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
