CAN WOMEN PREVENT WAR?

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 81, 29 December 1928, Page 14

CAN WOMEN PREVENT WAR?

SOME THOUGHTS AFTER TEN YEARS’ PEACE

' If a vote were to be taken among the women of England asking whether or not they were in favour of abolishing war, it is safe to say that 99.5 per cent, would record an affirmative opinion. Those who were mothers, wives or grown-up sisters in 1914 would probably vote 100 per cent, in favour. Of that there is little doubt. But that is not the difficulty. The question one is so often asked is: “What <a;> I. as an ordinary member of the '. community, do to prevent war?” (writes L. F. Easterbrook in “The Queen”). Several obvious answers occur. One can join the local branch of the League of Nation’s Union, or ask questions and extract promises from local candidates for Parliament, or, if war were suddenly to loom on the horizon, one could refuse to have anything to do with it and vote against it. But none of these quite fully meets the . case; they are all in a sense too easy. It is not enough to join an organisation, for .._:that and no more is merely to-shift the j - responsibility on to someone else. Pledges - given at election times are not usually quite the things to which one dare en- —■ - trust the welfare of future generations. And by the time things have reached the pass of voting against a Government that " “wants to declare war, the cause of paci-\---fism is usually lost already. Nor can one even trust oneself to follow such a course -— at such a time, for emotions are then aroused that tend to sweep one off one’s •1 - feet. They are not necessarily false or • bad emotions —much as I hate war, I realise that we could not have stood aside' in 1914. The way for preventing future wars is • a far more difficult one, and makes far -greater demands on the individual. First 11 of all it is necessary to become thorough- ■■■ "ly informed on the subject that clear / judgment may be obtained. Does history bear out the teaching that the way to prevent war is to prepare for it? Is it really “human nature” to murder, burn __and pillage to get what we want, and, if ““so, is it unlike other human weaknesses ~ in that there is no hope of overcoming _zit? Causes that result in war begin long ....before ultimatums are delivered —where - exactly have they begun, from what have they arisen, what can be done to prevent . their arising? How clearly can one visualise international society organised pacifistically, and how would it stand the •.test in various eventualities you might imagine? Until all these questions can be answered by the individual in terms that, still leave her convinced that the abolition of war is “practical politics,” -..-. it would be little short of treachery to - press for reduction in armaments, for putting more faith in the League, or for any of the steps that seek to put war outside the pale of civilisation. She would be trying to lull her country into a sense of security which she could not disprove to be false. With: the. extension of the franchise, women eould, of course, prevent any war. But there are circumstances when that might be dishonourable. The question seems rather to be: How can women promote peace? ‘ Needless to say, there are satisfactory ■- answers to all the above questions, or pacifism would have no cause and civilisation would be doomed to suicide, but the seeker after peace must not only find them, but be genuinely convinced of them. It is not enough to wish to abolish • war because it brings suffering and per- ", sonal loss. It.can only be abolished if it C ' can be shown, to be unnecessary, stupid and disastrous to everyone concerned. It is necessary tb realise how much war is 'holding up human progress and general well-being. Nor is it enough to dream of what might be done in our country with the thousands of millions of pounds we

have wasted in waging wars and preparing for fresh ones, unless one can believe ' ' in an organisation of society that will safeguard a peaceful country from rob-

bery and attack by an unprincipled neighbour.

“Yes I There you are !” says the person who is inclined to label all schemes for human progress t.s ‘utopian,” as if that adjective automatically blew them to pieces. “This peace talk is all very well, but you must protect yourself, and force is the only protection from force. You can't offer the other cheek in ordinary life.”

The argument seems unanswerable until one remembers that we are answering it every day. If the argument were really valid it would mean that every householder would have to arm bis servants and sleep with a revolver under his pillow to “protect himself” from his own countrymen who might covet his I goods. Once upon a time this was virtually a fact, but we have found a better way and now agree not to rob and murder and annoy each other, with the result that a proportionately small and inexpensive police force is sufficient to deal with those “enemies of society” who will not keep the agreement. Incidentally this “force” itself is dependent upon agreement, trust and moral assumption—all the spiritual factors which “realists” consider to be “utopian.” The police could not maintain peace for a moment unless a large majority of the community were set upon having peace, and unless malefactors knew that they had this force of public I opinion to deal with if they broke the law. In civil life we pool our means of self-defence to maintain an agreed code. What this means in saving of men and money employed in such work and in difference of mental and moral attitude may be realised by comparing the police and our present methods of defending ourselves and our property in civil life with the days when these things were done by feudal barons and their armies of retainthat travel, communication and the interchange of ideas, responsibilities and interests are linking up the nations of the world there is ho reason whatever why humanity may not justifiably consider organising itself internationally as it has organised itself internally in all the civilised countries. Instead of thinking in military terms, which means thinking of an army that imposes a nation’s own view of its own rights, we may think in “police” terms, which are precisely the opposite, for police .exist to prevent people from being their own judges and from imposing by superior individual force their desires on others. Women can help in making future wars impossible by thinking these things out for themselves honestly, refusing to be turned aside by abuse or by details ot dogma that only obscure the real issue. Thev can help by combating every statement they encounter in their ordinary lives that takes a “next war” for granted, and by never failing to show their disapproval of actions that look like s bP" ping back into the old ways that brought the culminating folly of 1914. Whatever their politics, they can question their candidates closely, not merely taking “Yes” for an answer, but demanding a '’definite constructional statement of what he intends to do to bring peace to the world, and making it Quite plain that, whatever other political considerations there may be on this one point they, will overlook no backslidings. Above all. as mothers, it is they who have most- influence in developing the mentality of their children. The reason why we cannot escape from war today save by a terrific effort made by every individual is because generations have been brought up in an atmosphere that accepts war as inevitable, and has even made it seem desirable. M e have, in fact, exalted war above everything by giving the militant professions a pres-

tige and glory above all others. There is no need to teach contempt for these professions, for they have evolved a type so very far from being contemptible, and if iu the future there will be a demand for such men to help police the world, there could be no more honourable calling. But we can teach our children that it is un-moral and unsatisfactory to try to get by force what cannot be obtained by other methods, and that the professions of peace and service to our country in other directions are deserving of at least as much honour. The time is now and the hour is growing late. Ten years after the end of "the war to end war,” suspicion and jealousy still stalk among the nations, and a few who had hoped that great things might come quickly and with little effort after that first Armistice Day are becoming a little despondent. There is no need to despond. Among all peoples there is a steadily growing demand for peace, and —best of all auguries—it is coming from the ranks of the ordinary men and women in whose hands the destinies of nations really lie. There is hope, but time is passing. Not always will the international horizon be so clear of any real cloud in the shape of a nation definitely bent on aggression. Not always will the men and women who knew only too well the ugliness, the obscenity and the utter futility of war be with us. The time for pacifism is now. when no armed danger threatens.