With reference to my minute of the 27th August, 1938 (Ass./19)¹ regarding Item No. 27 of the Assembly Agenda - Protection of the Civilian Non-Combatant Population against Air Bombing in case of War - I venture to suggest that if the Minister has any intention of intervening in the general debate this year he might consider the question of dealing inter alia with the item which has been placed on the Agenda by the Barcelona Government, and of adding an appeal that this vital question should be lifted out of the sphere of possible propaganda and dealt with seriously by the Assembly on a purely objective plane.

It is of course more than doubtful that any definite results can be obtained in existing circumstances, but nevertheless something might be possible, and in any case the effort should be made. It is clear that no side will have the monopoly of such bombing and that the slaughter of civilians can contribute comparatively little to the winning of war.

Another subject which could be considered is the serious situation in Central Europe. This could be dealt with from different angles. From the German angle, the possibility that any conflict on a large scale in Central Europe might degenerate into a world war, with the obvious danger that a State which immediately provoked such a conflict might by its rash decision lose all that it had hitherto gained - a gambler's throw. And from the Czechoslovakian angle, that it is incumbent on any State, the continuance of whose existence in case of serious conflict is dependent on other States, to make all necessary sacrifices for the removal of sources of trouble in order that those other States concerned should not be needlessly involved in a conflict. Even if it could be argued that the extension of the conflict to other States would follow not for the sake of protecting a State victim of aggression, but from the general consideration that the preservation of that particular State might be regarded as essential to the preservation of the balance in Europe and therefore of the security of the other States involved, the necessity would remain for the smaller State to go to the utmost limits to remove all reasonable causes of serious dispute with its neighbours. It must be recognised that the States which might ultimately be involved and which would have so much to lose, should from the circumstances have the right to impress this consideration on the State in question. The existence of Article 19 in the Covenant gives the right to any Member of the League to refer to the question of revision of treaties in case such treaties become a menace to world peace, and, so far as Germany is concerned, the Minister is in a better position than most to speak plainly of the dangers which rash decisions might involve, seeing that he has previously expressed himself in a manner friendly to the consideration of German claims. In this connection, a tribute could be paid to certain revisions of treaties that have been brought about by peaceful means, for example, that of the treaty dealing with the Dardanelles, the removal of Capitulations in Egypt, the recent agreement with Bulgaria by the members of the Balkan Entente, the removal of the penal clauses against Hungary and the sincere attempts which are apparently being made by States of the Little Entente to arrive at an agreement with that country in regard to minorities. And a reference to the settlement of all but one of the serious matters in dispute between Ireland and Great Britain could also if desired be added. Settlements like these count more than armaments for the preservation of peace and for the improvement of relations between nations.

It could be pointed out that complaint is often made that many important questions are being dealt with outside the League. It would of course have been all to the good if they could have been settled long ago within the League, but what does it matter now how they are settled, if they are settled? The state of affairs which needs settlement in Central Europe today was not brought about by the League or within the League. The League was saddled from the beginning with these problems, and it is the Peace Treaties rather than the League which have not worked. Moreover, but for the unhealthy situation which has existed in Central Europe, the efficacy of the League might not have been challenged in other quarters.

Points might also be obtained from the recent statements of President Roosevelt and Mr. Cordell Hull. These statements referred to the necessity of providing methods of peaceful settlement, as well as to the dangers of resort to force. There is no doubt that many States developed on democratic lines which were by no means antagonistic to reasonable claims by Germany are becoming increasingly anxious for their security in face of the doubts which exist as to the limits of the ambitions of the dictatorial Powers. And granted that those European States which always urge peaceful settlement had shown themselves too long unwilling to settle anything, at the same time it is a factor which cannot be ignored that even if the madness of an animal is due to intemperate treatment, measures of control have to be employed if the animal becomes a serious menace.

Another point that suggests itself is the anti-religious attitude in Germany and the dangers even to Germany itself which might eventually result from the building up of what might turn out to be a purely materialistic State. An appeal might perhaps be made that the leaders of the Reich should consider from all its angles a question which is causing grave doubts and concern to many who have always had the greatest admiration for Germany and its people.

If the Minister thought well of it, a reference could also be made from the humanitarian point of view to the vital necessity which exists of rescuing the children of Spain from the physical, mental and moral dangers to which they are exposed. These children will be the men and women of tomorrow, and everything possible should be done to lessen their sufferings and to prevent them from becoming a future menace in their own country and thereby a possible menace to other nations. I am aware that any such reference might be regarded as a suggestion that the League should provide some funds. This aspect will no doubt be given due weight, as China will probably be looking for funds again this year for the relief of the sufferings of the Chinese civilian population, including children, and for the prevention of epidemics. It is, however, a big humanitarian question and is of interest internationally.

The foregoing are merely a few rough ideas on which a statement might perhaps be based in case the Minister may be considering the question of intervening in the debate. If he speaks at all in the general discussion, I would suggest that he should do so very early - this, I think, would be desirable as other statements may be on somewhat similar lines - and, in that case, perhaps, if you agree, a rough draft on strong but objective lines could be prepared in the Department and discussed with the Minister before the Delegation leaves. There is as you are aware always little time in the Delegation for the preparation of a speech here before the general discussion opens. There is a possibility of course that events may happen in Europe which might necessitate a revision of any draft that may now be prepared, but to my mind the existing situation provides an occasion for a statesmanlike speech, which would be all the more valuable coming from a Minister who has always been objective in his interventions. In the existing circumstances, this meeting of the Assembly should not in my view be allowed to pass without some such intervention.

The necessity from the Spanish as well as from the European standpoint for the continuance of the policy of non-intervention in Spain, even though there has been obvious intervention on both sides, is another matter which could be referred to if the Minister thought well of such a reference.