The Press MONDAY, JULY 6, 1936. New Zealand and the League

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21827, 6 July 1936, Page 8

The Press MONDAY, JULY 6, 1936. New Zealand and the League

The New Zealand representative’s contribution to the debate on sanctions in the League Assembly was an announcement that his Government would like to see sanctions against Italy continued and intensified but would vote with the majority for their abolition. Such an attitude is not as inconsistent as it first appears. Presumably the New Zealand Government s expression of opinion was based not so much on the view that it was practicable to continue sanctions as on a desire to express in the most forceful manner possible its adherence to the principle of collective security. Indeed, it may be suspected that, had the Government been in a position of real responsibility in this matter, and had it been in direct touch with the other governments concerned, it would have declared in favour of raising sanctions on the ground that complete abandonment was better than gradual breakdown. It need not be supposed, however, that because of its rela tive insignificance and its remoteness from Geneva New Zealand is powerless to influence the course of events. As one member of the Assembly of the League, and a very minor member at that, she is not likely to have much influence on League decisions; but as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as a prospective member of the League Council, she can have influence It is necessary, if the unity of the Commonwealth is to be preserved, that its members should have a common foreign policy; and it is being increasingly realised that the principles embodied in the League Covenant are the best and perhaps the only basis for such a policy. The Abyssinian crisis has shown that a Commonwealth foreign policy is still in the making and that on the vital issue of collective security there are differences of opinion among the Dominions—or perhaps it would be truer to say that in some Dominions opinion is still in the process of formation. Both th’e ::outh African and the New Zealand Governments have now declared that they regard full adherence to the principle of collective security, involving the acceptance of all the obligations in Article 16 of the Covenant, as the only policy which meets the needs of the situation. It should be clearly understood that this attitude is not dictated by altruistic motives or devotion to abstract theory. It is dictated by an assessment of the grim realities of the world situation, and by two considerations in particular. The first has already been indicated. It is that the principle of collective security is the best basis for Commonwealth foreign policy. For Great Britain, the alternative to collective security is a system of European alliances; but for the Commonwealth as a whole the alternative does not exist. Th< gh Mr Duff-Coopers resounding and indiscreet declaration that France’s frontiers are Britain’s frontiers and that an alliance with France is an indispensable part of British foreign policy may be welcome to a section of British public opinion, it can arouse no enthusiasm in Cape Town or Sydney, where France’s frontiers seem no more important than the frontiers of any other European State. The same holds good of the reported desire of one section of the British Cabinet for an alliance with Germany rather than with France. The Commonwealth, in short, can, as a Commonwealth, throw its weight behind impersonal ruarantees of security but cannot, without risking disunity, pick and choose among potential allies. The second consideration is the unpalatable one that the British Empire is the most vulnerable i ulitary unit in the world. Its security from attack was based on the unchallenged supremacy of the British navy in all the oceans of the world. That supremacy is gone, and its recovery is a.i economic and financial impossibility. Moreover, the importance of sea power has been diminished, though to what extent is not clear, by the rise of the air arm. New Zealanders are perhaps more in a position to grasp these strategic realities than the people of some other Dominions; but we believe that ultimately the Commonwealth as a whole will be single-minded in the pursuit of collective Security.

There are one or two points of detail in the Prime Minister’s statement amplifying Sir James Parr’s speech at Geneva which deserve notice. One is the very emphatic expression of opinion that there should be no postponement of the September meeting of the Assembly, at which proposals for the reform of the Covenant will be discussed. The avoidance or post- “ ponement of difficult decisions,” says the Prime Minister bluntly, “has been one of the “ League’s weaknesses in the past.” He might have added that the world situation is steadily deteriorating and that every month that passes makes more difficult the task of those who are working for peace and security. The justification for delay already put forward—that amendment of the Covenant is a highly technical problem—is nothing more than a pretext Indeed, the whole question of reform has achieved a far greater prominence than it deserves; the only issue is whether the League States are willing to persevere with the attempt to build up a system of collective security. If they are willing, the present wording of the Covenant will not seriously impede them. Another important point is the Prime Minister’s announcement that at the meeting of the Assembly in September New Zealand will be represented by Mr W. J. Jordan, the High Com-missioner-elect, Sir James Parr, the present High Commissioner, Mr C. A. Berendsen, the permanent head of the Prime Minister’s Department, and Dr. R. M. Campbell, economic adviser in London to the New Zealand Govern* n.ent This is the strongest delegation that has represented New Zealand at Geneva since the early days of the League and can be taken as an indication that New Zealand is at last becoming aware of the vital importance to her of the problems now being considered by the

* ■* Farm Labour » Although it may give pleasure to the Minister for Public Works to see the wages paid to workers controlled by his department raised by 40 per cent, in a few months, it is necessary to consider what the effect of this will be on the farming industries, especially when new demands are made for labour. The present Public Works wages schedule will to a certain extent set a standard for casual labour, and it is obviously a standard far too high for farmers. It is true that the rewards for farm labour have always been somewhat behind those available in non-farming occupations. The general farm hand in the last three years has been paid an average of shilling or so mere than £2 a week, but in addition he has had board and lodging estimated to be the equivalent of another 30s a week, although some authorities believe this to be an excessively generous estimate of the worth of such board and lodging. There can be no doubt about the difficulty which the Government will have created for the farmers by the end of the present year. The Public Works Department, with the resources of the country’s money at its command, may be able to pay for a time an average of 17s 3d a day for unskilled labour, and at that rate it will corner the market. A casual Public Works labourer will not go into the country for less, and the farmers will not have much chant of holding their permanent labourers when there are such alluring prospects elsewhere. The farmers will have nothing to thank the Government for when they find that the residue of unskilled labour is all that is available to do work of primary national importance.