LEAGUE AND PEACE

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 36, 6 November 1933, Page 10

LEAGUE AND PEACE

Reply to Views Expressed by Vice-Admiral STAND ON DISARMAMENT The Dominion Council of New _Zealaud of the League of Nations Union has issued a reply to the recent article by Vice-Admiral Harper on “The Navy and the League of Nations Union.” “A. short time ago his Majesty the King said that he bad followed with interest the work of the League of Nations Union, and expressed appreciation of the efforts of its members to educate public opinion in support of the League, ‘in which lies our chief hope for the future peace of the world,’ ” the statement reads. “He further wished success to the efforts of the union to secure the whole-hearted support of public opinion, ‘so vital to the ultimate success of the League itself.’ . _ “What the success of the League really implied was further emphasised by the Prince of Wales on October 30. 1932, when he said; ‘I trust the people of this country, which has been the pioneer of so many great and lieneticent movements, will realise the urgent importance of doing all in their power, to assist the League of Nations Union in the greatest crusade of all—the crusade for world peace.’ "Professional Prejudice.” "In view of the statements made by those whose patriotism it would be unpatriotic to fjuestlon, one cannot but be astounded at the absurd lengths to which Vice-Admiral J. E. T. Harper went in an article reprinted last week in your columns. One can imagine that a professional man might have at least a prejudice against an institution that tends to limit or aims atMimiting professional activities, but only a very biased man could in view of the statements we have reproduced fail to see the weakness of the charge that ‘the League of Nations Union has probably done more damage to our Empire than the whole force of Germany did in the Great War.’ And when we ask for proofs of that serious charge all that we are given is the admiral’s belief that the activities of the union, if not checked, ‘may involve us in war.’ Evidently, in the opinion of the admiral, the possibility of a war is far more terrible than an actual war, in which millions are killed and wounded and thousands of millions of pounds’ worth of material are wasted. That alone is sufficient to discredit the whole of*his argument in the eyes of fair-minded men. T . “Tlie statement that the League o F Nations Union ignores national interests is not only .false, but is an insult to the very large number of highly-placed members of the Army and Navy who have given it, by .subscribing to it, their emphatic support. The union has never been so foolish as to think that peace will come by merely tnlkifig of pea e. but it firmly believes that it is only by the enlistment of public opinion in its support that peace can come. That is the function of the League, and in organising British public opinion, it naturally endeavours to show what policies should direct the League. To speak of such a course as ‘dictation to the League is false and absurd. Mercantile Mariner’s Plight. “Most of your readers will be amazed to hear that the British Mercantile Marine is in its present grievous plight through the machinations of the League of Nations Union. Most people have thought hitherto that depression in shipping was part of the existing world depression, which, in its turn, was, if not caused, at least intensified, by the calamity of war debts, of which it is the aim of the union to avoid a recurrence. “Whatever may be held by some individual members of the union, it is no part of its general policy that Great Britain should continue to disarm irrespective of what ether nations have done. In a booklet issued officially by the union only last year, one can read the following:—‘lt is true that Great Britain’s all-round record (i.e., in naval disarmament), especially in the last few years, is better than that of any other Big Power. But this is no argument against further reductions, if other states do the same in step with us.’ What ground is there, then, for the suggestion that the union aims at the abolition of the Navy? It is hardly likely that the union tvould go so far as to urge that the country deprive itself of the means to carry out its obligations to the League. Like the Navy League, it agrees with limitation of armaments by international limitation, and any argument on the score of naval reduction that could be used against the one could just as well be used against the other—that is, if the Navy. League really has no objection to limitation by agreement. Security Argument Questioned. “That a powerful navy is the best security against war is an argument very commonly used. That of course means Britain’s supremacy on rhe seas. That was a doctrine easily tenable so long as no other Power was in a position to dispute it. But modern developments In the resources of other States have made it a dangerous doctrine to maintain. It has already resulted iu the determination of America and Japan to have ‘parity’, with us, and, if insisted upon, might ultimately lead to Britain being outbuilt. Greater safety is to be found in a general limitation of all navies, on the understanding that they will join in defending international order. “Admiral Harper censures the League of Nations Union for its criticism of Japan. If that is so, the union errs in good company, for the representatives of the nations at Geneva unanimously condemned Japan as a breaker of treaties. No institution can lie blamed for being true to its principles. Whatever the admiral may think, the members of the union believe and will still continue to believe that a treaty is not a ‘mere scrap of paper,’ to be observed or not just as expediency dictates. Not a Pacifist Body. “Tlie League of Nations Union is not a pacifist body. It aims at meeting the new situation that has arisen in the world brought about by the wonderful development that has followed in the wake of the triumphs of applied science. The League of Nations may or may not succeed, but its failure will come, not because its aims are foolish and impracticable, but because tlie nations are too insensible of where their true advantage lies. It is the hope of the Union that the nations will realise this before It is too late.”