The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1932. FOLLOWING INSTEAD OF LEADING

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 69, 14 December 1932, Page 8

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1932. FOLLOWING INSTEAD OF LEADING

has to wait tor an then the world can never catch up on events. Contemporary History than’teid. CO They e wait O until t an t alr^dy lestablished I established of affairs leaves France would not abandon her claim to German re P^* on ® i J" tl J was nothing left to claim. Then when she was faced with default or repudiation, being a great creditor nation, she recognised the inevitable. But it was not diplomacy, sentiment oi reason that moved her; it was incontrovertible fact. The thing was so, and for many practical reasons a settlement by agreement was superior to a one6 Before France would release her hold on Germany, she had dragged the latter and half Europe to the edge of the precipice. They are g still there because ratification of the Lausanne settlement was made conditional on agreement with the United States on_ War debts. The only real change in the situation is that America has changed places with France. She is now cast in the role of unyielding creditor. Apparently in her case, also, the world must not expect any appeal on whatever ground to succeed. Agreement, if such it can be called, must again wait upon the accomplished fact. , , , , It is strange that the United States, of all nations, should compel such a conclusion. She professes to stand for co-operation between the nations, for arbitration, for the appeal to reason rather than fotce. Yet in this case she is in fact compelling an affair to be settled by force of economic necessity. She complains because Japan relies, on the accomplished fact in Manchuria but, because she will not yield in this other sphere, is permitting the empiric principle to rule as between herself and Europe. . -rt A finger has been placed on the very spot by The Economist. 1 hat sober and orthodox journal declares, “There is no shame if a contract is broken by force majeure.” That is true —but also there is no credit. The Oxford Dictionary defines force majeure as irresistible compulsion of circumstances beyond one’s control, pleadable in excuse of nonfulfilment of a contract. If the nations have to wait for such compulsion before they can reach a financial accommodation, it is a poor outlook for the adjustment of other differences by negotiation. Nor, because America happens to be the last in the line of creditors, is it any use placing all the blame on her. It is not only in the United States that politicians seem to have lost the secret of action and excuse their helplessness by pleading,the backwardness of public opinion! In many other countries to-day—and New Zealand is no exception—leaders are waiting upon and allowing themselves to be controlled by events instead of anticipating and trying to mould them. The question is whether public opinion is so backward as the politicians imagine on such issues as War debts, reparations or, one that is common to all nations, public economy. Have the politicians to wait the compulsion of necessity, has it got to become visible and crystal clear that a halt must be called, or a settlement made, or a change of direction taken, before action can be dared? In short must we actually get into a mess before an attempt is made to pull us out?

If such is the case then, as Mr. H. G. Wells and Sir Oswald Mosley contend, there is no hope for democracy. The system must break down and be buried under its own failures. But we are not yet convinced that the current low estimate of public opinion is a true one. If leaders had the courage to lead and Governments the determination to govern, we believe they would find public opinion solidly behind them.