Prof. Murray Rises to Defense of Pacts Affecting Minorities

A defense of the minorities treaties and a declaration that the generalization of the treaties to include all members of the League was entirely practical, although admittedly difficult, was made here by Professor Gilbert Murray, Liberal statesman and noted as a Hellenist and translator of Greek, in a letter to The Times.

“After Sir John Simon’s masterly speech on the threatened rebellion of Poland against her treaties, one hesitates to add a word,” Professor Murray wrote. “But, sooner or later, there will have to be some consideration of the demand, so long and earnestly pressed by many nations, for the generalization or equalization of the obligations of the Minority Treaties. I venture to think that such generalization, though difficult, is not so impracticable as generally supposed.

“When I had the honor of proposing in the Assembly of 1922 the compromise rules now in force the great Powers consented to the expression of a unanimous “hope” by the Assembly that the nations not bound by the treaties “would nevertheless observe in the treatment of their own minorities a standard at least as high” as the treaties required. The intention of this clause was to give to any delegate the right, if cases of oppression arose, to rise in the Assembly and ask the Government responsible why it was not fulfilling the “hope” expressed by all members of the League, including itself. This right would be, I think, a fairly formidable weapon, but it has never been used.

“There was, however, another line of approach to the generalization of the treaties which was then in our minds and which still remains open. The object of the treaties, it must be remembered, was not primarily humanitarian; it was pacific. They were intended to obviate a particular danger to the peace of the world arising from the transfers of territory, affecting fully 30,000,000 people, which took place in Europe at the end of the Great War. The Allied and Associated Powers, when making these transfers and putting these millions to a great extent in the power of their old enemies, took precautions against the occurrence of such wide and deep exasperation as might lead to another war.

“Thus a generalization of the treaties would by rights only imply an acceptance of minority obligations by all Governments in respect of any territories which they have acquired in consequence of the War. This would be a comparatively small matter. Most of such territories are already under Mandate, which carries with it a far more stringent responsibility than is imposed by the Minority Treaties. There would only remain a few districts, like Alsace-Lorraine—which has no grievances—and the Alto Adige—whose grievances seem at least to be greatly diminished. Great Britain, unfortunately, has no such non-mandated territory, or she might well set an example to the other Powers.

“I do not say it would be easy to obtain a settlement on these lines. It would involve, no doubt, some combinations of the existing Minority Treaties into one coherent document and a special agreement affecting the Jews.

“But at least there need be no fear that generalization would involve appeals to the League by the Welsh, the Canadian Doukhobors, the Bhils and Khonds, or the 109 ethnic groups which exist inside the Soviet Union; or indeed any general interference by foreign tribunals with the right divine of dictators or Parliaments to govern their own people wrong.”