A MEANS TO PEACE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21792, 26 May 1936, Page 8

A MEANS TO PEACE

to TUB SOXTOB 0» TBS SUBS. Sir,—ln hia letter in “The Press” of Thursday, “Digger” suggests that the Abyseinlans could tell us whether any country can afford to reduce* let alone abandon, armaments for defence. Presumably, If the Abyssinians had developed a "sound finance” system they could % have been compelled to work hard developing their own iron fields. They could have freed their slaves only to bind them more securely in the European wages system which, founded on bonded debt, would have compelled them ever to seek more work, politely called markets. They could have supplied themselves with mifflci-

ent arms. The international armament system would have seen to that as it did in Japan. They could have arrived at that advanced stage in civilisation in which their desire for more markets, backed up by efficient arms and the pressure of poverty induced by unemployment, would have led them to do unto Italy as Italy has done unto them. . On the other hand, it Is conceivable that. Italy being equally well armed, neither would have dared to attack. But at what a price in work would such a state of affairs have to be maintained! The theory of preparedness means that no slackening can be allowed. The policy which imposes such an intolerable state of affairs is authoritarian. It is imposed by the authority of a system based on the convention that men must be kept at work to keep them out of mischief. No regard is paid to the nature of the work, hence the acceptance of the convention brings about a state of affairs where nations are prepared to do the most devilish mischief to their neighbours. The very nature of the preparations involves a test to prove whether the means are strong enough. There is another alternative. Supposing that Abyssinia had been without arms, a great many would have been alive and well to-day. Italy would have been in possession just the same, but minus a legacy of hatred between blacks and whites, which may yet rock civilisation. They who supplied the means of resistance are equally guilty with Italy. Seeing that Abyssinia is such a poor country, it would be interesting to know how “sound finance” in the exporting countries could finance such an unsound proposition. The truth is that the financiers lost nothing. It was the workers who. accepting the work convention, made the armaments, and lost the value of work that might have been put to something useful. Be it noted that they spent their money not on armaments, but on food and clothing that was already there without their efforts. The Abyssinians lost their lives in the tragedy of trying to prevent the Italians taking their country in order to stock it with the surplus wealth which cannot be sold in Italy because the financial system imposes the work convention. —Yours, etc,. W. B. D3RAY. May 25. 1938. TO THE EDITOB OF THE FBESS. Sir, —I was impressed by Mr F. G. Thomas’s statement that if anyone knows any way by which war can be outlawed, he is in duty bound to expound his views, but before going any further I will endeavour to show why, in my opinion, the Returned Soldiers’ Association cannot actively move in the matter; and I may state that it is the same reason that neither the Church nor the New Zealand branch of the League of Nations Union can effectively move in the matter, except generally to condemn war. The Returned Soldiers’ Association is strictly non-political. Although wars in the past have arisen from many different causes, the Italian-Abyssinian one, according to Dr. Piscitelli, was economic; and that appears to be the most likely cause of another. Economics are hopelessly mixed up with politics, as the following reasoning will show. One political school of thought maintains that the best way of ensuring peace is to be strictly self-sufficient or at the very least as far as possible, and advocates tariffs and embargoes to enforce that ideal. Another school of thought considers that the fullest possible exchange of goods among the different nations of the world to be in the best interests of world-wide peace. Our present. Government is wedded to greater self-sufficiency, the Opposition to freer trade, although not prepared' to go the whole way. As a member of the Returned Soldiers’ Association, I cannot see how it can give a lead without running the risk of splitting the organisation. The state of the world being what it is, it seems to me that armemems are very desirable, as we (that is, the Empire) are in the fortunate position of being better able to build them than most other countries. Without doubt the Abyssinians would never have been attacked if they had not been obsoletely armed. I should be very pleased if anyone would explain to me how abundant State-controlled currency can take the place of essential raw materials if trade with other countries is debarred. According to Dr, Piscitelli, Italy wishes to be independent of foreign supplies, and one is entitled to ask why. It cannot be for the sake of security in war, as supplies from Abyssinia could be stopped just as easily as foreign supplies. The cnly inference is that she cannot buy them owing to embargoes and tariffs forbidding the exchange of Italian goods for her requirements in raw materials.

I agree that it is a case of “God help us” if Japan lines up against us, and it is up to us to consider the Japanese view that it is no use trying to outlaw war without removing the causes. Japanese statesmen say and prove that Japan is very deficient in essential raw materials, and must fight against being deprived of oversea supplies. If they are debarred from getting the products of the soil, they must have the soil itself. —Yours, etc., V. WILKINSON. May 25, 1936.