The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1924. WAR AND THE LEAGUE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 172, 22 July 1924, Page 4

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

TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1924. WAR AND THE LEAGUE.

For the cause ihat lacks assistance, For the tcrong that need* resistance, For the future in the distance. And the good that we can do.

The altitude of resentful suspicion r which Mr. Ramsay MaeDonald seems to ( iissume toward the League of Nations 4 may be described partly as personal, ' partly as official. He liaa always professed to support the League as a means of promoting international disarmament, ( and securing the world's peace. But ' lie has never been in sympathy with the advocates nf tlio League in Britain, , many of whom were strongly opposed \ to the very dubious attitude that Mr. { Mac Donald took up during the early ' stages of the war. The League propagandists in Britain are mostly Liberals, j and tliis fact may help to explain Mr. ; Mac Donald's recent refusal to accept ' the vice-presidency of the League and his somewhat acrimonious request that ] no more of its literature lie forwarded ( to him. At the same tune it must be ' remembered that Mr. JUaoDonald is \ heart and soul an- Internationalist, and J in accordance with the principles of i I Social Democracy lie expects world- i peace to be secured through "the ' solidarity of the international proletariat" and not through the efforts of the group of French and Italian and ■ British Nationalists who arc at present the mainstay of the League. All this may help to explain the curiously inconsistent tone of iir. Mac Donald's public utterances on this question, and iiis evident determination not to allow Britain to commit itself unreservedly to nny line of policy or action that the League may initiate. Within the past few days Mr. MacDonald's prejudice against the League seems to have hardened into active opposition. He lias objected formally to the Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Disarmament drafted last year by the League; and the grounds of hfg objection are distinctly noteworthy. To explain the position, we may remind our readers that the first attempt to organise the League of Nations on a world-wide basis practically broke down over Article X.—that notorious clause in the Covenant which bound all the contracting parties, if necessary, to use force against any State attempting to encroach upon the frontiers and boundaries defined by the Great Teace. Not only did the United States flatly refuse to come into the League, but many of the States that had already entered began to suspect that they had assumed extremely burdensome and dangerous responsibilities; and in consequence of the virtual deadlock that ensued the League's jurists were directed to examine Article X. carefully with a view to substituting some less precarious and less objectionable expedient to secure the world's peace. The jurists decided that, if the Covenant of the League were broken by any form of "external aggression," the members of the League were not bound to rush to arms, but the Council of the League might in such a case "recommend" certain members of the League—with their own consent—to take action on its behalf. But this interpretation of the Covenant clearly deprived the weaker members pf any golid guarantee ' for their safety, and they began at once j to make arrangements for their own security by means of alliances and military preparations. Then Lord Robert Cecil and his coadjutors, realising that I something definite must be done to 6ave the situation, proceeded to develop the scheme, which, under the title of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance, is now rejected by Mr. Mac Donald. The main features of this Treaty are that it describes "aggressive war" as a punishable crime, and binds the con-] tracting parties to assist any of their | number who is the object of aggrea- i sion, on certain terrae. The chief is j that every nation which expects the League to guarantee its security must give positive proof that it has reduced its armaments to the extent approved by the Council of the League; and, apparently, also, it must have kept itself clear from any alliances not purely defensive. But, if these conditions are complied with, then the signatories to the Covenant would be bound jointly and severally to assist the State which, being attacked, appealed for protection. Thus in the last resort the only guarantee that the League could offer far the maintenance of the world's peace, and the protection of the weak against the strong, would be punitive warfare to reduce an aggressor to impotence. But here comes in Mr. Mac Donald's letter to Sir Eric Drumniond, the SecretaryGeneral of the League, insisting that "it is impossible to lend military aid to any signatory State in caec of aggression," and that "Britain cannot afford to act as the world's policeman." Tho sinost obvious comment on this pronouncement is that a League of Nations without force behind it would bo as impotent a guardian of the peace as a policeman hemmed in by desperadoes, blowing his whistle for help that never comes. Mr. Mac Donald declares that Britain will not listen "even if the whistle be blown at Geneva," How can he blame France and the Little Entente if. despairing of any valid guarantee from Britain for their future safety, they fall back upon their own resources, and prepare in the last einer-" geney to defend themselves?