Canada’s Role in the League of Nations
The hope of ensuring that World War I would become ”the war to end all
wars” led to the creation of the League of Nations. Through the untiring efforts
of Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. President, the terms crating the League were
written into the Treaty of Versailles.
The League of Nations was based upon the principles of “collective
Security.” All members ere to co-operate against the outbreak of war. If the
security (peace) of any member were threatened, the others were to assist in
preventing war. Discussion, rather than war was to be the goal of these cooperating nations. An International Court of Justice was set up as a world court
to pass judgments on disagreements between League members. Further, the
League had as a long-range goal eventual world disarmament (doing away with
weapons of war).
The Constitution of the League, to be realistic, had to provide t least some
measures stronger than discussion. To give the League some “teeth” for
stopping small wars from spreading, members of the League had to agree to:
- Article X, under which members were asked to respect and help
to protect the independence of all nations from invasion or
conquest by any other nation.
- Article XVI, under which member nations from invasion or all
products sold by any nation at war other than to defend itself.
Most importantly, League members promised not to sell any
products to the aggressor in a war situation.
In practice, most nations tried to avoid “Getting involved” in actions
against those who threatened world peace. Canada was one of the countries
most critical of Article X. The Canadian delegates to the League claimed that
Article X was an unreasonable obligation for a country located in the “peaceful”
Western Hemisphere (after all, the first World war was really only a “European”
war, claimed Canada). The Canadian representative to the League, Raoul
Dandurand, compared Canada and the U.D. to two neighbours, one of which
was a fireman;
“May I be permitted to add that in this association
of mutual insurance against fire (war), that the risks we face
are not all equal. We (Canada) live in a fire-proof house, far
from inflammable materials. A vast ocean separates us from
Europe.”
The decision of the United States not to join the League came as a severe
blow to Canada. Americans had been disillusioned by their brief participation in
the “European War” and rejected President Wilson’s vision of America as a
policeman in world diplomacy. The Congress of the U.S.A. voted to not
participate in the League (a crushing blow to President Wilson, who had worked
so hard to create the League) and instead chose the path of “isolationism”. This
left Canada in the undesirable position as a kind of representative of all North
America. She feared that she might get dragged into overseas wars, perhaps
without the support of her powerful neighbor (the “fireman”).
THE ETHIOPIAN CRISIS OF 1935
While Adolf Hitler was restoring German military might, his Fascist ally
to the South, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, had decided that his nation’s
destiny lay in recapturing the glory of the ancient Roman Empire. In the spring
of 1935 Italian armies invaded the weak African nation of Ethiopia (see map).
Italian war ships were
allowed to pass
unchallenged through the
Suez Canal in 1936.
By 1936 Italy had
conquered Ethiopia and
Emperor Hailie Selassie
had to flee his country.
Mussolini had said earlier
(1935): “If the League
had extended its embargo
to include oil, I would
have had to withdraw
from Ethiopia in a week.”
Armed with spears and shields, the subjects of Ethiopia’s Emperor Hailie
Selassie fought vainly against tanks, airplanes, and heavily armed troops. The
League of Nations met hastily and “condemned” Italy for the attack. An
embargo (boycott) on trade was approved, despite the fact that the League had
not banned trade with more powerful nation of Japan during its invasion of
Manchuria. However, the League did not go far enough in its boycott of trade
with Italy, and it soon had to consider more drastic action. It was at this point
that Canada became involved.
Mussolini’s war machine depended heavily upon imported oil, and a
complete ban on trade by the League could have forced Italy to stop almost
immediately. However, even Great Britain and France held back from so forceful
a decision. Canada’s representative to the League, W. A. Riddell, boldly
proposed that oil be added to the list of goods not to be traded to Italy. The
Canadian government was in the midst of an election in 1935 (Mackenzie King
defeated R. B. Bennet). Forced by circumstances to act on his own (there was no
Prime Minister to take commands from), Riddell hoped that his suggestion
would bring peace to Ethiopia.
The new Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King, promptly dismissed
Riddell’s action as a personal decision, and assured the League that it was not the
policy of Canada:
“What was my amazement when on reading
the morning paper I found that Dr. Riddell at Geneva
was reported to have to be prohibited from export to
Italy. No instructions whatever had been sent to him
from Ottawa authorizing anything of the kind. Word
was immediately sent that no action of any kind was
to be taken by Doctor Riddell without specific
instructions from this government.”
News of the “Canadian proposal” as it was described by the European
press, ignited furious argument in Canada. Catholic Quebec, where there was
sympathy for Italy, the home of the Pope, charged that the League’s pressure on
Italy was a maneuver by Protestant Britain. Canadian public opinion was
divided, and Mackenzie King feared taking a stand that would antagonize the
people. Neither Great Britain within the League nor the United States outside
the League seemed willing to take the risks needed to stop the Italians. The
Canadian Prime Minister, then, refused a leadership role for his country.
Although insisting that Canada would co-operate in any decisions the League
made, Mackenzie King declared that Riddell’s idea was not the policy of the
Canadian government.
The rest of the League members seemed to take their cue from
Canada, although it is likely they would have come to the same decision
regardless, and the proposed boycott of oil was dropped. Whatever the
explanation the League of Nations had failed at its moment of greatest challenge.
If a “paper tiger” like Mussolini could ignore the League and flaunt world
opinion, what might happen with an even more belligerent government wielding
even greater military strength?
QUESTIONS (to be answered in notebook)
1. Why did many nations (especially Canada) object the Article X of the
League of Nations’ constitution?
2. Why was Canada unhappy when the U.S. A. did not join the League?
3. Explain what Raoul Dandurand means in his story about firemen and fireproof houses.
4. How would you describe Mackenzie King’s actions following Riddell’s
suggestions about adding oil to the embargo list?
5. a) What were the League’s obvious weaknesses? (think of several)
b) Which of these do you feel is the most serious? (that is, which one
doomed the League to failure as a collective security organization?)
EXPLAIN.