The Auckland Star; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1924. THE BOX PEACE PLAN.

Auckland Star, Volume 55, Issue 49, 27 February 1924, Page 4

The Auckland Star;

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1924. THE BOX PEACE PLAN.

WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED llht €bemng fitim, fHorninj fitias anß Che v-aho. For the cause that lacks assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

So far as the public voting on the Bok Peace project has gone (a message about which appears to-day), it would appear that the scheme for the promotion of international peace endorsed by the Bok Committee is 6trongly supported by public opinion throughout the United States. The success of the unknown and fortunate essayist who has already won 50,000 dollars and is likely to receive 50,000 more is, of course, a relatively unimportant matter. What is really interesting is the evident desire of the intelligent and thoughtful section of the American people to assist in (securing the peace of the world by co-operation with other civilised States. The acceptance of any such scheme must mean that the United States would relinquish the policy of isolation which they have endeavoured to maintain ever since the rejection of the Treaty and the downfall of President Wilson; and if Mr. Bok's proposal has the effect of opening the eyes of most of the Americans to the futility of their efforts to hold aloof from the problems that are engrossing the anxious attention of the rest of the world, the good intentions of the munificent donor will be amply rewarded. It is naturally difficult to give an adequate idea of the complete scope of the essay, which the jury—including Mr. Paoot, Colonel House, W. Allen White, Brand Whitlock, and other distinguished public men—have selected from over 22,000 entries in this remarkable competition. The principal idea underlying it is that th, Americans, while carefully safeguarding their sovereign rights and independence, must co-operate with other nations in the great cause of the world's peace. In the first ■place, the writer suggests the United States should at once become a member of the Permanent Court of International Justice, as suggested by President Harding a. year ago. Secondly, while the United States Government maintains its original objections to the Covenant of the League of Nations, it should be prepared to accept the Covenant if it were substantially modified in two important particulars. As most people should know, the difficulty raised by the Covenant from the American standpoint is that it involves the surrender of sovereign rights and powers to some external authority. This objection centres on the articles which provide for the forcible maintenance ol treaty rights and frontiers by the military and naval strength of the Leagtie, and also demand that States accepting the Covenant shall be subjected to certain economic penalties and restrictions if, in the opinion of the Council of the League, the terms of the Covenant have been broken. If the League, would agree to "substitute moral force and public opinion for the military a.nd economic force implied in Articles X. and XVI." America should, in the opinion of the essayist, join the League at once. The other proposals of the essayist are in the main subsidiary to these. The Monroe Doctrine i 3 to be safeguarded— though as a matter of fact such participation in international affairs as this plan suggests is entirely incompatible with the idea of political and national isolation on which the Monroe Doctrine is based. Further, the United States must refuse to accept or assume any obligations under the Treaty of Versailles except with the sanction of Congress. It is proposed that all nations should be eligible for membership in the League, though the acceptance of any given candidate for admission is still dependent on the favourable vote of twothirds of the League's Assembly. Finally the essayist urges "the continual development of international law" as an important factor in the preservation of the world's peace. This, too, implies the recognition of common interests and mutual responsibilities by all nations such as might at first sight seem inconsistent with the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine in its original exclusive form. The arguments in support of these conclusions are set forth with a great deal of force and cogency. But even if the scheme is open to criticism in detail, the approval registered by a large number of competent American critics indicates plainly enough that the Americans are beginning to recognise more clearly their obligations to the rest of the civilised world, and it suggests also that if President Wilson had been more tactful and less precipitate he might have induced his people to follow his lead and accept the Covenant and the League in some modified form five years ago. j