MANKIND’S CHOICE FOR “ORGANISING PEACE”

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27695, 27 June 1955, Page 12

MANKIND’S CHOICE FOR “ORGANISING PEACE”

“Mankind must make up its mind as to what it will do to ensure peace,” said Professor C. Weststrate. head of the economics department of Canterbury University College, when he outlined various possible methods of “organising peace” on Saturday evening. He was speaking to members of the Christchurch branch of the United Nations Association at a meeting held in the City Council Chambers to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco.

Defending the proposition that “peace has to be organised,” Professor Weststrate said that peace did not fall from heaven. Nor did it come about by a more or less universal conversion of mankind; it had to be imposed. Inside the frontiers of nations it had to be imposed by a Government backed by a police force. As the philosopher Kant said, “peace has to be established.” “A more difficult question is, how has peace to be organised.” said Professor Weststrate before giving .six possible choices. “First there was the possibility which had attracted statesmen, especially in the nineteenth century—the “balance of power” arrangement with the existence of a number of stater none of which was more powerful than another. “It is quite a plausible idea and has been tried but history has not supported the idea of its being a guarantee of peace,” he said. “There was much of that situation in 1914 and 1939. . . . The ‘balance of power’ doctrine may have made the probability of peace much greater at the beginning of the nineteenth century than it could in this century. We must remember that we live under the shadow of the A-bomb and other bombs.”

The second possibility was voluntary consultation between the nations without coercive .power and with an international judge to solve disputes. That arrangement was defended 50 years ago by the English philosopher and political scientist, Bentham. It had been put into practice in the shape of the League of Nations and the United Nations Organisation, both with the International Court of Justice at The Hague. “For the United Nations coercive power exists only on paper—on the pages of the charter.” Professor Weststrate said. “As we all know it does not work in practice because the Security Council cannot act without a unanimous vote. Any member can use the power of veto and the same applied to the League of Nations. The experiment with the League shows such an organisation cannot ensure peace in all circumstances. The League failed several times.” Professor Weststrate’s third possi-

Ibility was the “much talked about disarmament.” The disarmament under discussion was partial disarmament—the prohibition of nuclear weapons, he said. ‘‘We are then back in a situation before the first A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, still with I all the weapons there were in 1945. “What about complete disarmament? Surely, then, no fighting is possible, ’when we think about it we find it is an impossibility. Every country must keep a police force and it must have arms. In the Middle Ages wars were fought with weapons much less dangerous than a modern police force can be armed with at very short notice,” he said. The arrangement known centuries ago as ‘‘Pax Romana” was the fourth possibility, said Professor Weststrate. That was peace imposed by a powerful dominant State. Some hoped that there would be a “Pax American” or a ‘‘Pax Russiana.” But “Pax Romana” was subject to corruption. Professor Weststrate said another possibility, a world federal "government, was not a new idea. It meant a federal council with coercive power. It meant that nations had to give up their rights to maintain armies as big as they wanted to and to declare war. Giving up of part of sovereignty "was difficult because nations were jealous of their sovereignty. A world State was the last possibility, something that the Roman Empire aspired to be, but it was even more difficult to realise than a federal government because all sovereignty had to be given up, he said. The countries became provinces of a world State. ‘‘These are the six possibilities. I don’t see any other ways. Mankind must choose unless it wants to let matters drift, and that is also a choice —a most unsatisfactory one,” Professor Weststrate said. ‘‘We have now a United Nations, and we should keep what we have. We must not throw away old goods before we have new ones. But it does not really ensure peace. Therefore. I believe the United Nations has to evolve in the direction of a world federation. It would mean that the Security Council would have to become an organ that can act and not be made powerless by the right of veto. It will have to put its decisions into practice, and can do that only if it has force. “If you have that, then to all practical purposes you have this world federal government that can ensure a lasting peace—strong enough to quash any military force of a single nation,” Professor Weststrate concluded. Professor Weststrate was introduced by a vice-president of the branch, Mr F. J. Armstrong. Three U.N. films on health work in Greece, economic progress in the Philippines, and a summary of the Korean War, were shown.