PEACE GESTURE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 103, 3 May 1937, Page 10

PEACE GESTURE.

SOP TO AGGRESSORS.

TRADE AND MANDATES.

MANIFESTO FROM 'VARSITY.

(From Our Own Corrnponaeot.)

SYDNEY, April 29

One of the public sensations of last v eek was a manifesto issued by half a do/en members of the staff of Melbourne University, proposing a new po'itiral programme for the coining Imperial Conference.

This remarkable document bears the names of R. M. Crawford, Professor of History; L. F. Giblin, Professor of Economics; D. B. Copland, Dean of the Faculty of Commerce; W. M. Ball, Lecturer in Political Philosophy; H. Burton, Lecturer in Economic History; and W. B. Reddaway. Research Fellow in Economic*. The li?t includes some distinguished men. and New Zealanders should note with interest that Professor Copland, originally a graduate of Canterbury College, has appended his name to this document. But interest and curiosity may well change to astonishment when he comes to peruse this startling series of proposals.

The manifesto begins by reminding us! of the dangers to which the world is exposed to-day from aggressive Imperialism, represented, as it explains, by Italy, Oermany and Japan. To save the other nations from the effects of the policy that these Powers have adopted there seems to be only two alternatives—war and conciliation. War is unthinkable, for it would mean the destruction of the civilised world. The alternative, then, U to conciliate the aggressive Powers, and the manifesto regards the Imperial Conference as a convenient occasion for promulgating the policy that it recommends. tariffs and Mandates. The policy is formulated under two main heads: — (1) "The reduction of trade restrictions, and particularly the whittling down of preference* within the Empire; (2) The pooling of all poet-war mandates under stricter control by the League of Nations, so that they would be equally open to the trade and investment of all countries." fa other words, no far as Britain ind the Empire are concerned, we are recommended, firstly, to admit foreign goods more freely into our markets, and at the eauie time offer to throw all British mandated territories into a general pool from which the alleged wants of the aggressive nations may be met and satisfied. To do these Melbourne "done" justice, they are not blind to the fact that this would mean asking a good deal from Britain and the Empire, unless we could .get some sort of guarantee that such a sacrifice could be safely made. Therefore they admit that any attempt by the "haves" to meet the disabilities of the "have nots" must be accompanied by a willingness on the part of the Fascist countries to abandon aggression, to enter into general disarmament schemes and to give guarantees of collective security. On this last point they lay special stress, assuring us that "these offers would be contingent upon the Fascist countries coming I>ffck into the League and supporting collective security." Failure of League's Ideals., Before going any further it may well '■:e asked if the academicians who drafted this manifesto have kept their "yes close shut to the failure of disarmament aa a phase of internationalpolicy and to the failure of collective -ecurity as an ideal pursued by the League of Nations ever since the war. They must surely know that Britain's quixotic effort to bring about disarmament was a complete failure, placing her in a position of grave peril; and for the meaning of "collective security" they need only turn to the case ef China, the case of Spain, the case of Abyssinia. In the face of these things it is idle to suggest that any guarantee can be devised that would renew the world's faith in the policies once so eloquently maintained by the League of Nations and its adherents. Moreover, the idea that men like Hitler or Mussolini or the militant leaders of Japan have any interest in peace or disarmament, or that they are prepared to assist in ensuring safety and freedom from azeression for the world at large, is too ludicrous to discuss seriously. Cobdenite Pacifism. *... > But the authors of this manifesto eeem to attach no importance to the sources from which "Imperialist aggresfion" has usually sprung—political ambition, national jealousy, militarism pure and simple, or dynastic pride. They apparently hold with the Marxians that all wars arc trade wars, springing from economic sources and directed towards economic ends. They have, therefore, persuaded themselves that if trade barriers were swept away and nations had easier access to each other's markets a primary cause of international enmities would disappear. This pacifism of the old Cobdenite type has long been abandoned even by Britain, where Cobdenism flourished longest. Britain has given it up because it has been proved to be profoundly untrue. But even if it were true that nations hate each other in proportion to the amount of commercial protection that they pile up. why should Britain be expected to lead the way in the hope that the other nations will folfow? And what proepect is there that nation? like Germany and Italy and Japan—to say nothing of France and America—whose economic system is based firmly on protection, would ever consider seriously a reversion to that free trade which they have always been taught to regard as suicidal?