IDEALS OF PEACE AND REALITIES OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 196, 16 May 1936, Page 12

IDEALS OF PEACE AND REALITIES OF WAR

Legislators Discuss the League of Nations ABHORRENCE OF MODERN WARFARE, BUT ... Faith in British Commonwealth for Peace A full day was given by the House of Representatives yesterday to a debate on New Zealand’s obligations as a member of the League of Nations, the value or otherwise of the League Covenant as an instrument for peace, and the age-old conflict between idealism and realities. From the outset the discussion was on non-party lines, it having been explained by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Al. J. Savage, that the aim of the Government was to obtain from all sides of the House a free expression of opinion on an international subject. The Leader of the Opposition, Kt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, was the first speaker, and he was granted an extension of time. This concession was also given to the. I rime Minister, who followed. . . All the speeches revealed a common desire lor world peace, but it was made clear that several members, apart from hope agreed to “hae their doots” as to the conquest of the idealism of world peace over the realities of war and the greed of men.

The “complete futility” of the League of Nations as an instrument of peace in the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia was emphasised by the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. G. AV. Forbes. He said that in view of the failure of the Covenant of the League the question of devising some more effective method for the prevention of war should be brought forward at the Imperial Conference next year by the Prime Minister.

The opinion was expressed by Mr. Forbes that the time had come when 1 here should be some stock-taking regarding New Zealand’s position under the Covenantz-of the League. In Imposing sanctions the Dominion had carried out all its obligations under the Covenant. With three great nations, Japan, Germany and America, standing out, it was impossible to carry out a system of sanctions that was effective.

Although there was great indignation throughout the world at the unprovoked assault on Abyssinia, the translation of that indignation into action was another question. The scheme of sanctions was foredoomed to failure when the great nations were not prepared to stand behind the League in putting it into operation. That was the weakness of the whole thing. If the League bad been, effective K should have been able to prove Its value in the case of Abyssinia, aud its appeal to the League for protection against the unprovoked aggression of another. The whole world bad had to stand by while one of the most higblycivilisted nations in the world,_ fully equipped with modern military weapons, slaughtered its way through a primitive people, claimed to 1 have been victorious, and by right of conquest had taken Abyssinia. Sentiment was on the side of the weaker people. Complete Breakdown. “To-day Abyssinia is practically Italian territory, the war is over, and having seen the complete breakdown of the present machinery, the time has come for a complete overhaul,” said Mr. Forbes. “Under the Covenant we have signed the league Has been a complete futility, and it is sad to think that, the machinery of arbitration and discussion has proved futile, and that war seems the only resort.” Mr. Forbes said he felt they should not abandon the ideal of the League, but at the same time tliey should face I he facts. In her attitude to sanctions Groat Britain was isolated and charged with trying to prevent. Italy from her rightful expansion. This had only proved an irritant to the Itajjan people, and made them more determined bo carry the war to an end. Present, Machinery Fails. "It has been shown that the present’ machinery for the prevention of war is a failure.” said Mr. Forbes, "I think the question js one the Prime Minister should bring up at. the Imperial Conference with a view to seeing if some more effective method can be devised. Thp question is one for united action by the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is no use keeping up the pretence that, we have a weapon for dealing with nations that intend to go to war. It is apparent how little reliance the nations of the world place on the League. “To-day we see the nations arming feverishly, and war budgets swelling to a tremendous extent,” said Mr. Forbes. “This shows thati any practical belief in the League of Nations has disappeared. When the nations realise I hat nothing stands between them and war tliey will lie in a better frame of mind to come together. The question is whether we are to continue our loyalty to the Covenant, or whether we are to end that, and devise something more acceptable and effective in ite place." VALUE OF IDEALS Prime Minister’s View The importance to any nation of the idealist who was prepared to support his ideals to the utmost was emphasised by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage. "A nation must have ideals,” he said, "but they are not enough. However, I do not think we can emphasise the importance of the ideal too much, aud when we have a League of Nations made up of idealists whose ideal is peace on earth and who are prepared to face up to any situation. I think we shall have gone some distance on the way to peace. It has lieen said that multitudes cau be swayed by the advocates of war, but I believe that more can be swayed by the advocates of peace.” The Prime Minister said that a great deal of bumbug was talked about peace and war. but what had the nations and peoples of the earth Io gain from war. Very few cf those who did the fighting knew what a war was about, and if it was vnly possible Io destroy the propagandist 'it would be possible to

destroy a good many of the seeds of war. If the idealists were prepared to go, even to the very smallest exlent, toward outlawing Ihe private manufacture of munitions a great deal of good could be done, but people had money invested in munitions and in great chains of newspapers which were fanning the flames of war. “I have read,” Mr. Savage continued, “that bankers have something to gain from war, but I ct.nnot believe it, because there could not be another war without the destruction of the money system as we know it. I would welcome that, however, but why have a war to.do what can be done by Acts of Parliament? A man told me the other day that since this Government came into office it has done more to bring about a progress than all the wars of modern times.” Mr. Forbes: Did lie tell you that? Mr. Savage: Yes, and I believed him. “I must plead guilty to being an idealist,” the Prime Minister continued. “In fact. I am rather proud of it. I hope that when the nations of the British Commonwealth meet in Ixmdon they will do so with a common purpose, and I hope they will direct greater attention than' over before to the means of bringing about peace. I believe that Britons of the future will play a major part, in bringing about peace on earth. AA e have talked about it long enough.

“I have some confidence in humanity and I will back it 100 per cent, to support the principles of peace. I would like to see a referendum of the peoples of the earth taken on the principle of peace, and sec how they would vote whether governed by dictatorships or in any other way. There would be no doubt about the decision. They would say almost with one voice, ‘Give us peace.’” Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton) : Would you get that from Germany? ' , , Mr. Savage: I think We would it from the people if they could express a free opinion. Of course, when you are faced with a gun or a concentration camp it is difficult to express an opinion.

Humbug in High Flares. The Prime Minister said he felt bound to make reference to some of Hie bumbug that was talked by people in high places. One prominent man in England had stated that the country could not afford to allow the nation to become the sole manufacturer of munitions. However, if the nation took control there would be less possibility of huge profits being made at the expense of the blood and sufferings of others. "I believe,” said Mr. Savage, "that when those who make the wars are put into the front trenches they will come to a different opinion. The bulk of them, however, are past redemption. They are just old enough to make trouble for the flower of our manhood to settle.” Mr. Savage said that the discusison in the House would be valuable, as there were big issues involved. It was not a matter in which New Zealand could afford to stand alone. He wanted to se e the British Commonwealth standing together, and ho thought the nations of the world would stand with them in shaping a foundation for peace. “It. is impossible to contemplate another war,” he said, “without, expecting tlie destruction of everything that is best in our civilisation, and it would be generations before anything could come out of the havoc there must be. We have not yet got away from the effects of the last war. I raised my hat, to those who went away then to fight, but anything that 1 can do or Ibis Government can do, to make anythink like that impossible in the future, it will be not. only our privilege but our bouudeu duty to do. ’ Confirmation of Sanctions. “Any nation which enters into sanctions should be prepared to go the whole journey,” said Mr. Savage. He mentioned there was a Bill on the Order Paper, the League of Nations Sanctions Regulations Confirmation Bill, which was intended to validate the regulations made last year under the League of Nations Sanctions (Enforcement in New Zealand) Act, Ip which New Zealand had participated in economic sanctions against. Italy. Parliament was bound to pass the Bill before June 2 or let it go by the board. - The Prime Minister quoted figures showing a sharp falling off in Italy’s trade in February of this year, and said that these indicated Hint, after all. sanctions applied had hail a considerable effect on the commerce of Italy. “No one mentions these figures in a boastful spirit.” Mr. Savage continued. “Sanctions were applied lo try to prevent the breaking of agreements and the invasion of territory, and to mv mind they did fairly effective work in that sphere, although they did not go far enough. We had no quarrel with Italy* It was simply a matter of getting some collective action for tlie preservation of peace. “We will have to - do more than merely reduce Hie size of armaments We must, have the representatives of Hie nations meeting round the table to take any steps necessary in a collective way. not only to make agreements but also to enforce them. I think the

day is approaching when the foundation of peace will have been laid.” OTHER SPEAKERS Defelice Guarantee of Peace Tlie opinion that the League of Nations would have to be rebuilt on a new foundation and given sonic force which would enable it to make its decisions effective was expressed by -Mr. M J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford). He said that Great Britain had realised that tier greatest guarantee of peace was in well-organised defence, and that New Zealand would have to play its part by providing an adequate defence as well. "If we are going to rebuild the League it must lie on a strong foundation —a foundation of force sufficient lo give the League the power to make its decisions effective,” Mr. Polson said. “Tlie League lias suffered liecause of lack of that foundation. The intentions of Italy were well enough known long before she took decisive action, but tlie League showed no readiness or preparation to carry out tlie sanctions which she could have applied immediately.

“Britain has realised now. because of tlie failure of the League, that other measures must lie taken. Britain Ims found that site must lie able to defend tlie peace by (lie strength of Iter own right arm, to defend tlie people of the British Commonwealth and possibly Ibe people of other nations. New Zealand must also be prepared to play its part, to have an adequate defence for the country against possible encroachment from any invader. We must show Great Britain that we are prepared to make sacrifices for peace, as she is doing.” Destruction of Civilisation. “Civilisation, like the high-explosive shell, lias reached a state where in itself it contains tlie seeds of its own destruction,” said Mr. J. A. Lee (Government. Grey Lynn). He asserted that words alone would not save tlie League, and that the nations, if tliey wanted peace, would have to be prepared to face up to responsibilities embodied in a system of collective security. It cmild not: be claimed that the system of collective security had failed. So far it had been tried only very timidly. “1 am not one of those who believe that the Versailles Treaty was a peace; on the other hand, I do not believe that Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland zone was a gesture of peace,” he said. “We cannot deny that the gospel of force permeates the whole philosophy of the two Fascist States—the States of Mussolini and Hitler. Aud, unfortunately, sometimes 1 foci that that doctrine seems to have been looked on witli some favour by some of the high statesmen in Great Britain, But while the League to-day may be said to be in a state of virtual bankruptcy, it cannot lie said that collective security lias failed. But it does seem that we have almost to lie lashed into allegiance to a League of Nations. The League will never be a real thing until we are prepared to say that we mean with our bodies what we say with our voices: to say that we are prepared to accept, the responsibility for what we profess.” Mr. J. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua), said the League had displayed ineffectiveness by failing Io enforce the most vital sanctions. He still believed there was a future for the League, but nothing was more important to New Zealand than to bear its share of Empire defence. Mr. F. AV. Schramm (Government, Auckland East) said Britain had all along fought to give fair play to every nation whether it was a member of the League or not. Britain stood out as the leader of world pence. The only way to stop war was to lake the profits out of it. “The nation that makes no a I tempt to defend itself against aggression will lie annihilated,” said Mr. R. A. AA right (Independent, Wellington Suburbs). Sanctions as applied in tlie past, lie added, had been an utter failure. Tlie sanctions applied in the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia had actually done a grave injury Io the latter nation, for that action deprived it of the opportunity to obtain armaments with which to defend itself. However, lie was not attacking the League for the stand it had taken, but in standing for a principle it had denied Abyssinia the opportunity to defend itself against an aggressor. International Trade. "Il lias been said during this debate that by lifting barriers to international trade wo are going to remove some of tlie causes of war,” said tlie Rev. Clyde Carr (Government. Timarii). “But I think that international trade means international war. International trade involves loans between nations: that in turn leads to debt and this inevitably must bring war. In my opinion economic nationalism is file only hope for tlie world as an escape from war. "Il would be impossible to defend New Zealand against modern aggression, particularly from tlie air,” Mr. Carr asserted. “In any case any attempt to defend your country is only an added provocation to an enemy to continue his aggression. Our only defence is in tlie moral character and standard of culture of our people. If tlie country was conquered by an alien force, unless the inherent virtues of the race were sufficient to outstand the attacks of tlie alien culture it would be better that we should be conquered.” Mr. .1. Thorn (Government, Thames) said Dial I lie choice to-day was not between an evil condition of international relations and a perfect League of Nations. Tlie choice was between an evil condition of international relations and a League that was inadequate because Hie governments of which it was comprised were inadequate. The best tiling to do in tlie circumstances was to accept the League, notwithstanding its shortcomings. and actively to mould public opinion in the cause of peace. Dominion’s Part in Defence. The belief that the principle and ideal of the League were right and a hope that that principle and ideal would survive were expressed by the Rt. Hon. .1. G. Coates (Opposition. Kaipara). The discussion, he said, showed appreciation of Hie fact that New Zealand was not Isolated but closely concerned with international problems. Tlie League could not be effective unless the members themselves were strong enough to give effect to its decisions.

“It comes back to this.” said Mr. Coates: “Just how far is New Zealand prepared to take her part in the defence of her own country? That she should play her part is beyond all question. Tlie young people should be told not that they must all become soldiers or anything of that sort, bill that if the time arrived they should be proud and not ashamed to take their part in protecting the freedom they have to-day but which they may not have if our country was invaded by a foreign race.” Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nel-

son) said he did not believe pence would ever come from violence. He did not. think that the world would get peace by preparing for war. It got what it prepared for. War could be banished from earth when the nations approached their intercourse with each other on a high moral plane. Mr. B. Roberts (Government. Wairurapa) said that war was based on fear —a negative emotion. Ho put his faith in the League because he believed in democracy. The League was attempting to settle world differences not by the arbitrament of the sword but by appealing to reason. The necessity for maintaining cohesion between the democratic States of the British Empire as one means of assuring peace was emphasised by Mr. K. .1. Holyoake (Opposition. Motueka). “The greatest, problem which we ourselves have to confront to-day is the fate of our own Empire,” he said. “There is no question that the problem of maintaining the commonwealth of nations which form the Empire is of tlie greatest moment. It is essential that we should maintain contact witli Hie League but even more essential for peace that we should remain members of the Commonwealth.” Mr. AV. M. C. Denham (Government, Invercargill I said that although the League had failed the only hope for Hie peace of the world was to stand by that institution and rebuild it on a sounder foundation.

Mr. W. I’. Eudean (Opposition. I’.'irnellt stressed Hie need for adequate defensive measures as the best, means of ensuring peace. Mr. AV. J. Lyon (Government. AVaitemata) .spoke in support of the League of Nations, and said tlie League’s job was to build up some degree of co-op-eration not only to prevent war but to help the nations understand each other’s viewpoint. "The social work of Hie League during Hie past 16 years has more than justified its existence,” said Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). “Undoubtedly it has failed badly at times, but the only sensible thing to do is to consider Hie reasons for its failure and strengthen and build it into an institution that will lie aide to bring iiliout peace in the future.''

Mr. A. S. Richards i Government. Roskill) expressed tlie hope Hint Hie League would take steps lo control tlie forces loading to war. He suggested that a strong restraining influence on tln> Press, armament firms and tlie banks would do a great deal to create a better atmosphere in tlie world. Mr. C. M. Williams (Government, Kaiapoi) said lie did not think the League had failed. No effort toward peace could ever be a failure. The League bad been set an impossible task under the conditions ruling in the world to-day. Mr. S. G. Smith (Opposition. New Plymouth) said lie believed the greatest factor .for peace in the world today was the British Empire. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 5.30 p.m.