President Wilson was designated as the person to call the first meeting, I understand. The United States not being in the League and no one haying been designated to call the second meeting, who will call it? ,
Although it has always been understood that large standing armies and navies would be reduced, it was never thought there would be a time when there would not be a sufficient army and navy for the polipe purposes of the world.
Nations is not setting up the old wars. The League of Nations has to accept the world, when peace is made, and deal with it from then onwards. That brings up this very important difference between the Supreme Council and the League of Nations. We are often asked why the Supreme Council does not bring its duties to an end and make room for the League of Nations. That arises from a misconception of the difference ,between the two bodies. The Supreme Council differs, both in its composition, and in the work that it does, from the League of Nations. The Supreme Council will continue until the Treaties have all been drawn up and accepted, and until the force to cause them to be accepted has been used, if necessary. When the world is at peace it is not expected that there will be very much left for the Supreme Council to do. On the other hand the League of Nations is not merely a small sub-committee of the victorious powers. The League of Nations includes thirteen neutral powers; its powers are curative and constructive and it takes hold where the Supreme Council lets go.
taken into the League as a nation only by the Assembly. Ukrainia is one of eight or ten smaller powers, I understand, that are applying for .admission to the League. If, when the Assembly meets next November, they are satisfied1 that there is a stable government in Ukrainia, that she can be recognized as .an independent nation and that she is prepared to fulfil the obligations that fall upon a League member, the Assembly may then take Ukrainia into the League. They'cannot be taken in except by the Assembly; the Council has not power to do it.
Mr. GRIE.SBACH: The hon. member used the expression,, "recognizing a . nation/' some time ago and said that the League of Nations was not a super-state. Would the League of Nations recognize the belligerency of a revolting country or the independence of a country that had achieved its independence before the Great Powers, or only after it had been recognized either ,as a belligerent or as an independent by the Great Powers?
With respect to Armenia, the first 'Step that is to be taken is to delimit its boundaries. At the present time "Armenia" is a term which spreads over a larger or smaller portion of the map. President Wilson has been asked by the League of Nations to delimit Armenia. That, as I say, is the first step. It still remains to the Supreme Council after these limits are suggested to determine whether they are satisfactory and to take the necessary steps to crystallize that area into a state. Then it becomes necessary to get a mandatory appointed. It has already been suggested that the United States should accept the mandate. The United States, I understand-, has 'declined to do so and therefore it comes back to the Supreme Council to determine what to do with Armenia. The Supreme Council in turn is suggesting to the League of Nations that it should find a mandatory. It is possible that the League of Nations may decide to guarantee a loan of the necessary funds to put Armenia on a sound financial basis and may also guarantee the necessary force to be raised among the powers for its defence, in which case it may be possible to secure some small state that can take over the administration with a feeling that the whole expense will not fall upon them and that they will' not be compelled to maintain a large army in Armenia for its protection.
desire to congratulate the hon. member (Sir Herbert Ames) upon the splendid address which he has given us to-night. I have long looked upon him as one of the best types of Christian statesmanship that we have produced in Canada. I have been closely associated with him for about sixteen years and I must say that as a gentleman I hold him in the highest esteem. I have followed with great interest the remarks he has made to-night and I believe that if anybody can make a success of what is a very difficult proposition the hon. gentleman will be able to do his full share.
I am pleased and delighted with the description he has given of the aims and objects of the League. But, as we cannot spend all out time on ideals, he will perhaps pardon me if I draw attention to two1 or three matters in connection with the League of Nations that have been stumbling blocks to myself and in regard to which I have expressed my views in this House on previous occasions. [DOT]
This is probably the greatest ideal the world has produced up to date. Unless it is the great success that it is expected to be it may prove one of the greatest fallacies the world has ever seen along the line of the attempted control of nations. Just looking at the practical side I want to make a very few remarks. The hon. member for St. Antoine devoted a large part of his remarks to the question of disarmament, and the word "armament" was not mentioned in a way to suggest that armaments were being increased. I do not know that we would be justified, as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) apparently thought, in cutting down the very meagre Estimates that have been presented to this House for the naval, military and air services. I do not think that the hon, member for St. Antoine himself desired that his speech should be used in that direction. Therefore the leader of the Opposition, who has retired from the Chamber, for the moment, was not justified in seizing upon his remarks at the very earliest opportunity and using them as an argument against the very moderate proposals we are trying to get through the House in the way of naval and military Estimates .
What I would like to have heard from the hon. gentleman who has delivered this .splendid address to-night is a little more about the difficulties that are in the way of the success of the League and- not quite so much about the idealistic period that is expected to arrive in the history of the