• U.S.


2 minute read

The Secretariat of the League of Nations reluctantly made public, last week, a note dated one month previous in which the Brazilian Government of Premier Octavio Mangabeira reaffirmed Brazil’s intention to withdraw from League membership in June 1928.

In serving the original notice of withdrawal, two years ago, Brazil was joined by Spain because both nations felt that they should be accorded permanent seats on the Council of the League of Nations, at the time when Germany was admitted to the League and given a permanent Council seat (TIME, June 21, 1926).

Recent overtures from the League have caused Spain to withdraw her threat to withdraw (TIME, April 2). The fact that Brazil’s latest note was kept secret by the League for a whole month suggests how many last minute efforts have been made to get Brazil to reconsider.

Most distressing of all to Leagophiles was the contention of Brazilian Premier & Foreign Minister Octavio Mangabeira, in his present note that: “It is not alone by occupying a seat in the Assembly or Council that a country can collaborate with the League. . . .

“Countries that . . . join in the conferences through which the League strives for universal welfare . . . rightly consider themselves collaborators.”

Clearly the Brazilian premise is pure “sour grapes,” but the Brazilian conclusion voices a pernicious doctrine. It suggests that League states may avoid unwelcome responsibilities by dropping out of the League, and yet expect to continue to reap many of the advantages of League membership by “collaborating,” in the manner of the U. S.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com