IF DRUMS ROLL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 234, 3 October 1935, Page 20

IF DRUMS ROLL.

ATTITUDE TO WAR.

WILL AUSTRALIA FIGHT?

LANGITES' DEFINITE " NO."

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, September 25

For the past two or three weeks the Abyssinian problem and the possibilities of war have naturally provided material for endless controversy here. The "Labour Daily," which, it must not be forgotten, is Mr. Lang, has been keeping up a ceaseless tirade of invective against "tho war-mongers," warning its readers that Australia's only chance of safety lies in detaching herself from the League and Britain and declaring for "neutrality," at tho samo time demanding the recall of our warship the Australia from "the naval front." On Thursday of last week Mr. Lang delivered an inflammatory address at Petersham, maintaining in true Marxist style that the whole trouble is "a light over markets" and for oil supplies, in which we cannot afford to become involved, and insisting that as "sanctions

mean war" we must have nothing to do

with their enforcement. The "Labour Daily," with the free uso of such captions as "Imperialism Prepares for War," "Preparing for Conscription," and "War Hysteria," has endeavoured to produce tho impression that Mr. Lyons has committed Australia to war already, and that only the Langites can now save us from destruction. It has fastened on

the equipment of a trawler for minesweeping and the presence of a gunboat at Port Darwin as positive proofs that Mr. Bruce has already spoken the fateful words at Geneva, and it has utilised for the purposes of political propaganda the rather curious fact that the "Sydney Morning Herald," in advocating tho use of sanctions against Italy, is for the moment on the same side as the Communists who in their fear and hatred of Fascism are prepared to support any kind of policy that may servo to embarrass or defeat Mussolini. No doubt

the constant reiteration of such party cries have produced some effect, and the influence of Lang and tho "Labour Daily" is to be traced distinctly in the many resolutions passed recently by Labour organisations and industrial unions denouncing war and urging that Australia must hold aloof from any external conflict. "Not Britain's Duty." This is not meant to suggest that tho strong objections to Australia's participation in any war are confined to the "Labour Daily" and the Langites. The "Bulletin," for example, which detests Langism, has expressed clearly and firmly the opinion that it is not Britain's duty to defend Abyssinnia—at least, single handed—that she has not in the past attempted to invoke the League's sanctions when Germany and Japan violated tho spirit, if not tho letter, of the Covenant, and that Australia "should not" allow herself to be involved in any such policy now. But, of course, the "Bulletin" argues its case rationally and logically, with due dignity and restraint, whereas nearly all sections of the Labour party seem to havo been carried off their feet for tho moment by the reckless Langito propaganda. The Sydney Labour Council, the Roeturn Miners' Federation, tho Australian Congress of Trades Unions, the State Labour party (Langite) and even the A.L.P. have engaged in organised demonstrations against tho possibility of war, and have passed resolutions intended to debar Aus-

tralia from participating in it. It is a J remarkable fact, however, that even iji tho Labour camps many men who speat with authority have opposed the Langito view. Mr. Donal Grant, M.L.C., that obdurate revolutionary, still thinks that "Australia is worth defending," and urges that we should support the League —"whatever Mr. Lang's opinions may be"—in view of future contingencies, which may compel us to invoke its aid. Mr. Lloyd Ross, tho University-gradu-ate, who has- been recently appointed secretary of the A.R.U., insists that Britain may soon be fighting the-battle of Labour against Fascism, and th»t we should help her. Doubtless, Mr. Ross and the A.R.LT.—a frankly Bolshevik

body—believes with Sir Walter Atome that "now is the time to defend Russia by defending Aybssinnia"—a comment

which shows how far political action may ultimately be diverted from its original purpose. Mr. Lazzarini, M.L.C., a Langite "stalwart/' would rather refer the matter to a Commonwealth conference to consider a joint policy, but Mr. Davies, M.L.A., holds that "if the nations decide on collective action, then Australia should stand by the League." Miner's President's View. , Mr. Nelson, president of the Miners' Federation, asserts that his organisation is definitely opposed to Mr. Lang's neutrality policy, and holds that "League action is tho only safeguard against war." An even more emphatic opinion has been expressed by Mr. Ogilvie, the Tasmaiiian Premier, This Labour leader,

who is generally credited with strong

sympathy for Langism, has declared that "to abandon League obligations is unthinkable," and he predicts that "the da}' may come when Australia might be in dire need of help, and may invoke sanctions similar to those now at issiic." In other words, as Sir Norman Angell said this week in London, "the fight for the Covenant is a fight for defence," and if wc refuse to make an effort now to enforce international justice, we may call in vain for help if and when we have to defend ourselves against aggression— "we cannot have it both ways."

Under these existing circumstances a great deal of public interest naturally attached to the explanation of the position at Geneva provided by Mr. Lyons early iit the session. The Prime Minister carried out his intention last Monday (September 23) when ho told an intently listening House that "on August 30 the High Commissioner, Mr. Bruce, was instructed that the I Federal Government would closely co-operate with the Government of the United Kingdom for continued efforts to settle the dispute by peaceful means, and for the maintenance of the principles of the League." He also traced the course of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, showed how the League is involved, and laid stress on the important fact that no breach of the Covenant had yet been committed, and that even if Italy proves recalcitrant some time must elapse before the breach is irreparable and the League can attempt to assert itself as regards sanctions. It was noteworthy that ill*. Lyons did not attempt to consider the most important feature of the whole

situation—what will happen if, through attempting to enforce sanctions, or to uphold the League in any other way, Britain finds herself at war. Will Australia follow her then? _

"War For Economic Profit." Mr. Lyons had given notice that the matter of his statement would bo open for debate and 'tho Labour party took full advantage of the opportunity. Mr. Fordo, speaking for Federal Labour, declared that "the fight" is as usual one for economic advantage," that his party "wants no war in foreign.fields for economic treasure," and that the A.L.P. has taken "non-participation" as its watchword. Mr. Beasley, leader of the Langites, took an even stronger tone. He, too, insisted that the war, as all Marxists maintain, is purely a light for economic profit, and that Australia could pain nothing and would lose much by taking part in it. He, therefore, urged—following the lines already taken by Mr. Lang—that Australia should declare her neutrality, demand the recall of our warship and the withdrawal of Mr. Bruce from Geneva and leave 1 the League and its insidious policies severely alone, and Mr. lieasley put his own views in the form of a resolution, but when an attempt was made to carry on the debate the closure was applied. The reason was that the Budget was being held up and that it is a matter of urgency to put it through. Mr.' Lyons promised the indignant Labourites that ho- would allow another day next week to finish the discussion—"after war is declared," added Mr. James (Langite) grimly.

In' a tactical sense no doubt 'Mr. Lyons and liis colleagues scored • all along the line, and the Prime .Minister was ably supported in his advocacy of the League by Sir Geo. Pearce, Senator McLachlau and other members of the Cabinet. But a great many people besides the Langites would like a more specific declaration from Mr. Lyons as to tho probable effect of any attempt on tli6 part of the League to enforce sanctions against Italy, and the logical consequences to Australia. Our leading newspapers agree that tho Prime Minister lias not been explicit on these points, and they admit that ho has at least two good excuses. Ho cannot well say anything definite till Italy infringes tho Covenant by somo act of war, and in any case he must not risk embarrassing the League in general, and Britain in particular, by making too plain a statement just now. But still, very naturally "wo want to know." Future Of The League. It should be noted, however, that while tho "Sun" and the "Telegraph" feel that the Prime Minister ought to say something more to reassure puolic opinion here regarding Australia's position and the dangers that she may possibly have to face, the "Sydney Morning Herald" is concerned chiefly about the future of the League. The "Sydney Morning Herald" has argued all along with much force that if Britain goes to war "we will bo in it whether wo like it or not." For it is puerilo to pretend that an enemy strong enough to attack Britain would respect any declaration of neutrality that Australia could make; and if war coincs wo will ha v.: oo defend ourselves. This point has been brought out most clearly ,by Dr. C. E. Bean, the historian of Australia's campaigns in the Great War, who in several letters to the "Sydney Morning Herald" has set out tho various alternative courses open to us, and has shown conclusively . that we must support the League* as long as possible, unless we are prepared to attempt our own defence without allies and without external aid.

This is tho view that the "Sydney Morning Herald" has adopted, and its quarrel with Mr. Lyons is not that he has failed to consider Australia and its peril, but that ho has not made it sufficiently clear that Australia means to back up the League, for her own sake, no matter what tho consequences may be. Curiously enough several of' Mr. Lyons' colleagues seemed to feel that ho had not spoken plainly enough, and tried to make the position clearer during the discussion. Senator MeLaclilan in particular, insisted that "the best policy is one of collective security, and he derided the idea that we shall not back Britain to tho utmost." The approval which lias greeted these sentiments shows that they stand for a very substantial section of Australia's public opinion.

Of course tho hour of decision has not yet struck. But in the meantime tlio "Sydney Morning Herald" has performed a useful public service by ridiculing the Langite slogan "sanctions mean war," and by quoting against the

"Labour Daily" its own solemn appeals for the enforcement of sanctions, and advocating "an ultimatum to Mussolini based on Aitiele XVI." Apparently the "Labour Daily" believes that 'Vonsisteiicy is the refuge of fools." Hut Mr. Lang always had a short memory.