The Auckland Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATE The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1923. WAR AND THE EMPIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 185, 4 August 1923, Page 6

The Auckland Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATE The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1923. WAR AND THE EMPIRE.

For the eoute ikat lack* uiulmm, For the wrong that need* reaiHamee, For the future in the dUtence. And the §oo* thmt vee can <*c.

A great deal of interest attaches to the issues raised in the debate in the Federal House of Representatives over the course to be followed by the Commonwealth Premier at the coming Imperial Conference. A certain section of the Australian Labour party is anxious that Australia should hold aloof from Britain's foreign policy, refuse to participate in it, and, generally speak ing, indulge in the luxury of "splendid isolation," no matter what the results may be. The excuse for this line of action, or inaction, eeeme to lie thalt, if Australia admits any responsibility for anything that Britain does or leaves I undone, the Commonwealth may be dragged into war at the heels of the Mother Country; and, therefore, Mr. Brennan and the other pacifists of the Labour party insist that, as Mr. Bruce puts it, "the issue is one of peace or war." It should be hardly necessary to point out the absurdity of this contention. For Mr. Bruce has already explained that be intends to urge the claims of the League of Nations upon the conference, and to do everything in his power, on Australia.; behalf, to secure the maintenance of international peace. As regards the great question of Imperial defence, Mr. Bruce very naturally argues that Australia muet be. prepared in the last resort to protect herself, and she will certainly not be able to do this unless she has previously ; concerted some policy or plan of action I with Britain. I Of course it is quite easy to refute j this "non-intervention" fallacy. Mr. I Brennan and Mr. Scullin may claim, if { they please, that Australia has at least the precedent of America to follow. But , I who can maintain that the United States ! have upheld their own dignity or even ' secured their own safety by holding 1 i themselves so persistently aloof from the responsibilities which other nations have (been compelled to assume in regard to the world settlement? And even supposing such a policy to be justifiable in the case of a great Power like the United i States, how can Australia, dependent as 1 J she still is for her freedom and her national existence upon Britain's naval I strength, be expected to follow such a 1 lead as this? We notice, by the way, that Mr. Brennan insists on Australia's right to refuse "to associate herself in i wars of depredation" with the object of I gaining such victories "as had been seen ; on the other side of the world." Does j Mr. Brennan really believe, that the " j liberties of mankind and the peace of the • ; world would have been more secure if, ! the Allies had been beaten and Germany

had -non the war? Mr. Brennan's out- "] burst is characteristic enough, but it; illustrates quite effectively the dangerous i consequences of muddling sentiment and p politics together, and arguing out c abstract doctrines to a purely theoretical k conclusion without ever giving a thought 1 to the practical facts anu issues of,. a national or international life. | 0 The futility of a policy of detachment \ and isolation for a country in Australia's r position should be obvious enough when s we consider how closely the material t interests of every portion of the Empire <j are involved together, and how utterly I impossible it is for Britain —and there- \ fore for any portion of the Empire—to s stand by, unmoved and apathetic, a t passive spectator of the course of inter- - national affairs. But even if the pacifist* < of the Australian Labour party fail to , recognise such responsibilities as these, 1 they should not be blind to the dangers 1 to which their country would necessarily 1 be exposed if it followed their lead and < abstained persistently from any co- \ operation with Britain or any other ; Power in world politics. Perhaps /the i' climax of absurdity in this connection ' was reached a few months ago by the , 1 Australian Workers' Union when it P issued a manifesto urging all workers to i f refuse positively to takp part in any ; war "outside the Comonwealth." Com- | ( menting upon-this appeal the "Bulletin" j very appropriately cited the case of i France to illustrate the terrible experi- ' ences which must befall a country that, , being attacked by a foreign enemy, is , unable to fight out the war beyond its ( own borders. If a foreign foe Invaded ' Australia all its big cities might be occupied at once, all its coastal railways j, cut. and the whole of its industrial and ; economic life promptly destroyed, while j ' the people and their possessions might be subjected to the treatment which the '. Germans thought good enough for Northern France and Belgium. Such is the possible fate which the pacifist Labourites of the Commonwealth wish the people of Australia to prepare for themselves by refusing to "participate" in Britain's foreign policy, which a&sur- ' edly makes for peace in the conduct of Imperial affairs. ■ 1