The Dominion TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1927. COMPULSION OR GOOD-WILL?

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 296, 13 September 1927, Page 8

The Dominion TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1927. COMPULSION OR GOOD-WILL?

Those who anticipated that the September meeting o£ the Assembly of the League of Nations would be comparatively without incident must have been surprised by the dramatic developments which were recorded in yesterday’s dispatches from Geneva. The moral achievements implied by the sentiments expressed by the international representatives have surpassed expectations, and indubitably strengthened the prestige of the League in the eyes of the world.

The peace 'discussions, in which the question of disarmament is organically involved, centred upon the principle upon which the nations should be guided in their efforts to abolish the argument of force in the settlement of their disputes. Agreement was tacitly reached on the point that whatever is to be accomplished in the fructification of the peace movement must rest upon voluntary acquiescence—upon good-will —rather than upon compulsion exerted by sheer weight of numbers. This principle hitherto has been prejudiced by the original psychology of the situation, which divided the League into two camps—the victors and the vanquished. Much, if not all, of that element has been removed —first, by the admission of Germany into the League Assembly; secondly, by the evident preparedness of that nation to join the peace forces; and, thirdly, by the acceptance by France, through M. Briand, of that nation’s good intentions.

What is now apparent is the apprehension of various nations that any element of compulsion in regard to peaceful arbitration might divide the Ldague into opposite camps, representing the plaintiffs and the defendants. This aspect of the question was admirably expressed, in plain language, by Senator Pearce, the representative of Australia. Australia (he said) was inexperienced in international diplomacy, but had had practical experience of compulsory arbitration, which was the main principle of the Protocol. The term “compulsory arbitration” itself contemplated ill-will in dispute, and force. While he was not prepared to say that industrial arbitration in Australia had failed, he could not say it could be classed as an unqualified success.

Senator Pearce went on to say that the League’s main aim should not be the settlement of disputes, but the prevention of differences developing into disputes requiring intervention either by the League or by the Hague Court, and the encouragement of settlements by friendly negotiation. Here he rather missed the mark. Having so impressively exemplified the argument against compulsory arbitration he overlooked the moral influence of open-court settlements by the League in full international assembly. In the present development of international relationships, it is a fact that no settlement can be arrived at between any two nations which does not in one way or another affect others. Therein lies the value and influence of open-court settlements made with the cognisance and approval of the assembled nations. In effect, if we place the League in its ultimate perspective, it is the judgment of the world. The influence of the League of Nations must always be moral rather than legal. The final endorsement of peace as against war must rest upon the confluence of international sentiment, and to that desirable ideal the nations, to judge by the present session of the League, are perceptibly drifting. As Senator Pearce very sensibly urged, the League must not be “stampeded into hasty decisions.” It can move with certainty and assurance only in consonance with the progress of public sentiment, which, in turn, must inevitably react to successive achievements in the League Assembly. From this point of view, the present session should exert a definite influence on the course of public opinion throughout the world.