The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 30, 1938. NEW ZEALAND AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 207, 30 May 1938, Page 8

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 30, 1938. NEW ZEALAND AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Parliament during the coming session should take an early opportunity of clearing tip various questions of foreign policy raised by the conflicts of opinion between the British and New Zealand Government’s representatives at Geneva. In a reference to the subject a few days ago we asked by what authority the New Zealand High Commissioner committed the people of this Dominion to the risks and dangers of a European'> policy which the statesmen of Britain anu France so studiously avoided, and pointed out that in the present precarious state of ’European politics, “such differences, 11 public y expressed, might easily lead to serious consequences. Members of the present Government have declared that in the event of Britain being involved in war this country would lend its support—Mr. Nash has said, “its utmost support.” But is it not even more important that support should be given to Hie efforts being made by the British Government to prevent the Empire from being dragged into a war ? Nothing can be more obvious than the fact that an attack on Britain would be an attack on ourselves and other parts of the Empire, and that we would have to fight for our lives and liberties whether we liked it or not. Surely any policy on the part of the British Government that is directed to averting such a catastrophe is worth trying and worth supporting. Of what use is it going to be in restraint of the aggressive policy of a foreign nation or group if it is proclaimed from the most public international assembly in the world that Britain and other important parts of the Empire are unable to agree upon the principles of action vital to their security? Any appearance of disunity eould only have the effect of encouraging those who may have designs upon Britain s overseas territories to pursue their ambitions. “Divide and conquer is one of the fundamental principles of grand strategy. Yet we have the New Zealand High Commissioner, at a time when a convincing display of British unity could do so much to keep the European situation under control, advocating'>a policy which might lead to x the gravest possible consequences. Are the views expressed by Mr. Jordan at Geneva, views which ranged him alongside Russia, and against Britain and France, to be taken as representing the considered policy of the New Zealand Government? It must be assumed that this Government has been kept fully informed of the developments,in Europe that have contributed to the British Government’s change of policy, and of the grave reasons for it. But Mr. Jordan pins his faith to the League of Nations. The League, he declares, ought to take action. But the last time it took action it failed ignominiously/ Why? Because its members refused to act in concert, and because three of the Great Powers were not members. Now, with Italy out, there are four o. the Powers outside the League, and three of them are pursuing aggressive policies entirely contrary to the spirit and intensions of the League Covenant. These are the facts that Mr. Jordan refused to face at Geneva. By his attitude he placed this country in the position of being “offside” with the British Government in a. matter vital to the whole Empire. The Sydney Bulletin, describing the New Zealand High Commissioner as a “diehard champion of the now. completely discredited League of Nations, upholder still of that hopeless experiment ‘collective security,’ ” remarks that he is “one of the diminishing few who refuse to be influenced by the most stubborn facts. Was it not Mr. Jordan who declared, on the eve of his departure for London as High Commissioner, that not another troopship would leave this country? Yet it is the same Mr. Jordan who, even at this, date, as the Bulletin expresses it, “is all for the British Empire pursuing a foreign policy that would lead inescapably to another world war.” The country is entitled to know whether Mr. Jordan acts independently of the New Zealand Government, and if not whether the Government approved his open declaration at Geneva of New Zealand’s disagreement with the policy supported by Great Britain and France.