AMERICA AND PEACE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 25, 31 January 1928, Page 6

AMERICA AND PEACE.

Last week at the Oversea League's luncheon in London, Mr. Wickham Steed, discussing the prospects of world peace, seized the opportunity to warn his hearers that at any moment a condition of "dangerous tension" might arise between Britain and the United States. As the whole world ought to know by this time, Mr. Wickham Steed, editor of the "Review of Reviews" and ex-editor of the "Times," is one of the most accomplished and best-informed of modern journalists, and his views on international affairs carry much weight in diplomatic circles. A sincere friend of peace, he made this last visit to the United States in order to be present at a conference of a World Alliance for International Friendship held at St. Louis. He delivered a number of speeches to large audiences in different centres, endeavouring in every case to suggest to his hearers the possibility of a movement toward world peace led by the United States. It would be necessary, he argued, to make certain in the first instance that the Americans are resolved not to lend money to any aggressive State, to trade with it or to give it access to American resources; and that as a further step in the same direction the Americans will not support or assist any nation that takes up arms without employing arbitration.

These are rather sweeping commitments, but they were adopted in principle by the St. Louis Congress. At this same gathering Mr. Newton Baker, once Secretary of State for War, improved upon Mr. Steed's proposals by suggesting not only that the Americans should refuse to trade with an aggressor nation, but that the United States should attach itself to the Hague International Court, and that the American Government should endeavour to negotiate treaties with other Powers on the lines of the Locarno agreement, binding the signatories not to go to war on any provocation whatever. These proposals certainly involve serious practical difficulties. What •is j an "aggressive" war? Might not a just war grow out of the necessity for redressing some of the injustices embodied in the Peace of Versailles? Would a declaration of complete abstention from war be constitutional? How would the United States stand if they were ultimately compelled to protect their "nationals" in Mexico? But in spite of all this, Mr. Steed saw many indications of a sincere desire on the part of a very large section of the American people to work for peace even on such rigorous terms as these. He warns Britons, however, of the danger of counting too much on racial and cultural similarities. "The Americans," says Mr. Steed, "are perhaps the most foreign of the nations that we have to deal with."