Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-20
Brands Plan Is Given
Final Blow by Britain
BY A. G. GARDINER,
England's Greatest Liberal Editor

1
LONDON, July 1e.-Aristide Brands
scheme for q united states Of Europe
has had the most critical reception on
all sides and the British reply, which
was published Friday, may be said 10
administer the final coup de grace, No
one questions the excellent intentions
OF BRAND. who is q good European, but
his proposal breaks down on every point
and has been riddled In turn by Ger
many, Italy, Holland and even Spain.
Foreign Minister Henderson puts the
nnger on what Britain, as well as Hol-
land, regards as the fundamental vice
OF the scheme. 1t proposes to set up
League of Nations to do work which
the League was intended to do. WHY
duplicate the machinery without the
possibility OF organic coordination and
with the certainty Of conflict? There
was vague talk Of the two bodies work.
ing together harmoniously, but Il was
entirely unconvincing.
r y -
Any union in Europe such Is the
one conceived must, In the British
view, be definitely subordinate to .
wider union under the League.
But apart from the undesirability Of
multiplying the machinery, the proposal
Is fundamentally inconsistent with the
stresses the obvious danger that
Brands union would emphasize inter-
continental rivalries by which doubt.
less he means rivalries between Europe.
America and the British common
/ Wealths. The same objection would be
valid against the powerful crusade now
iDelng organized in England for stiffen-
ing the economic union of the British
commonwealth: Assuming success for
that policy and the adoption of Briand'S
European scheme, the position of
Britain between the two economic svs-
TENS would obviously be full Of dim
culties.
The purpose Of the British note IL
plainly to suggest that the world would
not be better OF by the substitution
OF an era OF an aggressively nationalistic
continental group Of states for an era
OF nat1onalistic states. Clearly. also.
he Is sensible that behind the idea of q
European economic union is the notion
freely expressed. especially in France.
mat such q union would strengthen
EuropeS resistance to the economic
domination of America. Hence the OBJ
lection to any scheme which is not
suoordnated to the League Of Nations,
y = A%
To read between the lines of Hender-
sons argument is to read that eyerv-
thing legitimate which Is possible under
the BRAND proposal is possible under
the League and possible without arousine
suspicion and inviting the dangers i'm
pnclt In an independent European
federation. II the League cannot achieve
the pacif1cation which BRAND desires.
1t Is obvious that the new organization
composed OF the same material, can do
no better.
|. In the press comments on the note
IL Is pointed out that BRAND failed To
forttfy the scheme with any real con-
structive ideal, such as basing European
union on European disarmament or
European free-trade. Moreover, 1t Is a
misnomer to use the title United States
of Europe" for BRAND postulates that
the sovereign rights Of the states shall
be retained intact, while any real federla
system must obviously involve some
sacrifice Of independence.
- y X
Hut the chief rock on which the pro-
posal must founder is the widespread
feeling that whatever the intention, 1t
is inconsistent with the prestige and
authority of the League Of Nations and
that, in fact, 1t is an attempt to found
q rival organization on basis more
resembling the old competitive ideals
than the new order embodied in the
League.
The view Is pretty widely expressed
that the unanimity with which the
scheme has been condemned from all
quarters will lead to It's abandonment
before the meeting Of the League
Assembly In September and, indeed, 1t
Is dificult to suppose that BRAND can
contemplate appearing before the AS
sembly with so mangled a corpse. But
even If the scheme is withdrawn, its
shadow will dominate the Assembly and
from all this writer gathers 1t will have
an important repercussion on pro-
ceedings.