The Problem Of Peace

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28572, 29 April 1958, Page 3

The Problem Of Peace

Sir, —With grief and disappointment I read Mr W. R. Lascelles’ address to the Tin Hat Club. As a prominent member of Heritage and the United Nations Organisation (humanitarian) Mr Lascelles has forgotten the preamble to the United Nations constitution. Psychologically and philosophically no organisation can negotiate from so-called positions of strength, but only dictate; the records of industrial disputes prove this. Mr Lascelles seems to take the position of Dulles, which was wrong for Napoleon, Hitler, and others but now appears to be correct for America and Britain. Lord Palmerston said: “Britain has no

friends, only interests.” Vested interests which now account for former bitter enemies and heroic friends being completely transposed in less than a generation. Until the useful people realise that their minds, bodies, and taxes are being used for selfish interests, then, and only then, will we have peace.—Yours, etc. MELVILLE B. MITCHELL. April 24, 1958.

Sir,—l am surprised that yc-u printed the very offensive letter signed, “Shut Big Liars’ Mouths.” It is not very helpful to the cause of world peace. Exactly how is your correspondent going to shut anybody’s mouth? Will it be by actions such as the “quick-on-the-draw” methods of the Americans by sending nuclear bombers towards the U.S.S.R.? Or will it be by the sinister fascist death camps such as were conducted in the last war? The last defence of fascism is just by shutting good people’s mouths by death. Millions of brave people have been eliminated in this manner. Regarding the statement that there are barriers erected to prevent people from leaving the socialist nations, there is a barrier between Hong Kong and China, and it was’.hot. erected z by the Chinese. Moreover, the Chinese are now moving back to the mainland in large numbers to escape the miseries of Hong Kong.—Yours, etc., April 24, 1958.

Sir, —In this time of international tensions, Mr Nash’s gesture to Mr Khrushchev could lead the world. More publicity should be given the exchange of greetings between such leaders in modern democracy, racial tolerance, and co-ejq£tence. Although Mr Nash ha§*not yet denounced colonialism in th£> forthright manner of Mr Khrushchev, or even of Mr Nehru y he has much in common, and proves; by his desire to help backward peoples and by his loyalty to the United Nations that in humanitarianism and progressiveness, he is their equal. Mr Nehru, a courageous fighter of British power j everywhere, and often called the world’s wisest politician, recognises Mr Nash’s qualities. Certainly he welcomed Mr Nash hs warmly as Mr Khrushchev. These three men may be destined to lead mankind to the new order awaiting us. Hats off to them, and success to their plans. —Yours, etc., RUBATO. April 25, 1958.