ORGANISATION OF PEACE

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22727, 3 June 1939, Page 14

ORGANISATION OF PEACE

Great Britain and Russia OBJECTIVES OF RECENT NEGOTIATIONS

[By the RT. HON ANTHONY EDEN, P.C., M.P., Former Secretary of Foreig* Affairs.]

Mr Eden discusses the objectives that Great Britain has in rpind in negotiations with Soviet Russia and emphasises that / there is no conflict between the two countries on the main issues of international policy.

For the greater part of last year Europe was engaged upon what Monsieur Duhamel has aptly described in a recent book as “the White War of 1938.” The axis objectives of last autumn, like the objectives of last spring and the objectives of this March, were all of them strategic. This is now nowhere in dispute. The entry of German troops into Prague brought final conviction even to the most reluctant, Bismarck once spoke of Bohemia as “a fortress erected by God in the very heart of Europe.” That fortress has now been effectively reduced, but the circumstances of its fall have brought about a revolution in British foreign policy. The spectacle of successive acts of aggression carried through in violation of agreements recently entered into has had its inevitable consequence. The British people are now united in a determination to join with other peaceloving nations, wherever they may be found and whatever their political complexion, in resistance of further acts of aggression. However this policy may be christened, it is in fact an effort to recreate a system of collective security. Conscious that the repeated and cynical disregard of every article of good faith has brought us to the very brink of war, we seek to reverse the process, and to cry halt to the practice of gangster methods between nations, and thus to restore a measure of international confidence. In pursuit of this policy, it is essential we should at no time lose sight of our objective, nor allow our judgment (o be influenced by secondary considerations of sympathy or prejudice. It is popular to interpret the present condition of the world as a struggle between contrasting political ideologies, in wffiich the democracies and the dictatorships are at odds. •’ It is these conflicting philosophies, we ai‘e assured, that divide the world; yet there must be room for both. Our duty, therefore, so the argument runs, is to combat the tendency to divide the world into two camus, based on ideological differences, and to reconcile nations now antagonised by reason of their contrasting systems of government. But to reason thus is to leave too much out of account. The fundamental differences which to-day divide Europe are not wholly, nor even mainly, concerned with forms of government in any land, but with the conduct of international relations. Nor is it accurate to maintain that all democracies have one conception of how international affairs should be conducted and all dictatorships another which is in sharp antithesis. International Right There are, in truth, certain conceptions of international right which are accepted by the great majority of nations, whatever their form of government. These nations are all agreed that they form part of an interdependent community, and that they have in consequence to accept certain standards of conduct for the regulation of their affairs, as any community must do. Those who have refused to live with other nations on this community basis have thereby excluded themselves. Nobody wanted them to go, but the remaining nations are thereby compelled to combine to protect the collective interest, which is not merely, nor even principally, a material possession, but the maintenance of certain international standards which alone distinguish civilisation from anarchy. In pursuit of this objective, the British people accordingly seek the cooperation of all countries whose aim has been to preserve these standards, whatever their form of government and whatever their political complexion. It is this same conception of international right which unites all the nations, including Soviet Russia, with whom Great Britain has been in negotiation during these last weeks. Whether the form of the government of these

nations is democratic or totalitarian haj' nothing to do with the matter. These differing conceptions of the conduct of international affairs will be better understood if we consider the philosophy that underlies one of them, for it is in sharp contrast to the whole conception of an international community which accepts the maintenance of certain standards as indispensable to its own survival. “Everyone admits,” wrote Machiavelli, “how praiseworthy it is in princes to keep faith and to live with integrity, and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience hag been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who had placed reliance on their, word.” Britain’s Search For our present purpose it is not necessary to determine whether Machiavelli’s contention has so far been borne out by the experience of the century. The essential fact is, however, that the greater interdependenca of the modern world, constant contacts, the reduction and indeed the virtual elimination of the problems which distance once created, have rendered tha conduct of international affairs on such a basis impossible. Whatever the experience of the past, down that road now lies international anarchy or war. So it is that at this moment Great Britain is seeking, and other governments are seeking with her. the co-operatinn of all States who wish to maintain certain standards of good faith between nations, for unless we can re-establish those standards, international society, like human society, can only drift into ever-widgning confusion. Viewed in this perspective, co-operation with the Soviet Government cannot present any such formidable difficulties, and there are other reasons why its promotion v is in the world’s interest at this time, / The chief danger to peace in the im-' mediate future is that there should be any misunderstanding anywhere of t !i e seriousness of purpose of the British peonle in pursuing the foreign pokey upon which they are now engaged, Prince Bulow, -when German Chanc-’l-lor 40 years ago, described Enrrk c h politicians as “rather indolent and very optimistic.” There is no lack of propaganda to-day directed to support the same contention and designed to crcrie a suspicion that the British people ere not in earnest even at this hour. is in fact not even the flimsiest foundation for any such suspicion, but this knowledge cannot excuse Great Britain from making use of every influence which she can command to carry conviction. The acceptance of 3 measure of compulsory military service in England, where the voluntary tradition is so strong, was itself invaluable for this purpose. That decision has, however, its international counterpart. The conclusion of an early agreement between Great Britain, France, and Russia would carry the process a vital step further. That there are difficulties is admitted. Their character and complexity are well known, nor do they concern Britain only. But the British people cannot accept that they are insuperable, for the success of the policy upon which their Government are now engaged depends in a large .measure upon the speed and completeness of the arrangements that can be made. So far as Anglo-Russian relation.-' in a narrower sense are concerned, it is perhaps timely to recall that four years ago the representatives of the governments of the two countries signed a declaration in Moscow which included these words: “There is at present no conflict of interest between the British and Soviet Governments on any of the main issues of international policy.” The experience of recent years will seem to most observers to confirm the validity and force of this statement. (Copyright 1939 by Cooperation. Reproduction, even partially, strictly forbidden.)