[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page 3687] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]``LIBERATION'' OF FRANCE IN VIOLATION OF COVENANT OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS ______ HON. HENRY J. HYDE of illinois in the house of representatives Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, among the many letters I have received on the subject of Iraq, one of the most provocative is the following, signed ``Publius Secundus.'' Dear Congressman Hyde: I am not an international lawyer, but as part of an effort to be helpful, I must note that I have come across disturbing and, I believe, persuasive evidence that D-Day and the subsequent ``liberation'' of France were in direct violation of the solemn obligations undertaken by Great Britain and France under the Covenant of the League of Nations. As Article 11 states: ``Any war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.'' Whether one regards this easily avoided conflict as a dispute (1) between one League member, Britain, and another, France (then represented by the government of so-called ``Vichy'' France, which is believed to have never withdrawn from the League), or (2) between one League member and a non- member state (the United States vs. France, Britain vs. Germany), the League Covenant makes clear the course of action to be taken, in letter and certainly in spirit. Under the first scenario, the conflict must be submitted to the League Council under Articles 12-16. The waiting period of at least three months after the award by the arbitrators, sadly, was not honored. As for the second scenario, as addressed in Article 17, 1 do not recall Germany--an ex-member since 1933--being invited to accept the obligations of League membership, and certainly the leading role of the Council was never respected. In fact, I am forced to conclude that the Council was bypassed altogether. Certainly, no vote of the Council authorizing the attack was ever recorded. I believe we can all agree that Chancellor Hitler was a brutal dictator whose replacement should be welcomed by all civilized people, but we must also admit that he was never given an opportunity to disarm. Certainly no League Commission was ever allowed to perform its tasks, as set forth in the Covenant. I need hardly remind anyone that Britain's declaration of war against Germany in 1939--Germany had made no attack upon Britain--violated virtually all of the Articles of the League Covenant. I find all of this very troubling. I believe we have no option but to judge the June 6, 1944 Allied attack--jointly planned and conducted by the U.S. and Britain in a deliberate effort to impose their will by force on other countries without authorization by the League--upon Germany/France as an avoidable or easily postponed act of aggression that demonstrates a complete disregard for international law and the obligations of membership in the League. The international community cannot allow this violation to stand. Sincerely, Publius Secundus. For your convenience, I have attached the relevant sections of the Covenant. (The entire document can be obtained at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm). The Covenant of the League of Nations ARTICLE 5 Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting . . . ARTICLE 11 Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council. ARTICLE 12 The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council. In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators or the judicial decision shall be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the Council shall be made within six months after the submission of the dispute. ARTICLE 13 The Members of the League agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration or judicial settlement and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration or judicial settlement. ARTICLE 16 Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League. . . . ARTICLE 17 In the event of a dispute between a Member of the League and a State which is not a Member of the League, or between States not Members of the League, the State or States not Members of the League shall be invited to accept the obligations of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, upon such conditions as the Council may deem just. If such invitation is accepted, the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive shall be applied with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Council. Upon such invitation being given the Council shall immediately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances. . . . (The entire Covenant can be obtained at http:// www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm) ____________________