The Dominion SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1944. THE LARGER ISSUES

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 123, 19 February 1944, Page 6

Th e Dominion SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1944. THE LARGER ISSUES

In the last few months a good many suggestions have been advanced with the object of improving future national and international relations, and. the very fact that they have been so widely discussed must be regarded as encouraging evidence of a world-wide interest, an awakened desire that some way should be found to establish the rule of law and banish forever the use of force as an implement of policy. It will be remembered that General Smuts, when he spoke in London, drew attention to the added strength the United Kingdom would acquire by a close association with “the smaller democracies in Western Europe.” Then' Lord Halifax, in ■ a speech which caused quite a stir, delivered in Canada, declared that “not Great Britain only but the British Commonwealth and Empire must be the fourth Power in that group upon which, under Providence, the peace of the world will henceforth depend.” Many others, catching the vision that inspired Cecil Rhodes, look to ever-closer Anglo-American association as the essential step. These undoubtedly are, as yet, the most clearly-defined means of approach, and it should be kept prominently in mind that they all are intended to lead to the same goal. There is another school of thought that sees in these limited designs a future source of weakness. One of its chief spokesmen is the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King. Speaking in the House of Commons at Ottawa a fortnight ago, he drew attention to the fact that the advocates of the various courses took for granted the maintenance of a certain balance of power between the various great nations. And the Canadian leader continued: It is indeed true beyond question that the peace of the world depends on preserving on the side of peace a large superiority of power so that those who wish to disturb the peace can have no chance of success. But I must ask whether the best way of attaining this is to seek a balance of strength between three or four Great Powers. Should we not, indeed must we not, aim at attaining the necessary superiority of power by creating an effective international system inside which the co-operation of all peace-loving countries is freely sought and given? . . . What we must strive for is close co-operation among those great States themselves and all other like-minded countries. The Canadian Prime Minister ended by stating: “We look forward, therefore, to close collaboration in the interests of peace, not only inside the British Commonwealth, but also with all friendly nations outside it, small as well as great.” These, it would appear, are among the great issues that have to be determined in the not distant future. The disaster to which power politics can lead is now only too plain. There is, underlying the advocacy of the various means briefly outlined above, only one purpose —peace and security. It may be that the nations will find some way of creating what Lord Bryce once described as “a superior authority whose sole duty is to administer justice and maintain peace.” It involves two things —the establishment of a procedure foi . the settlement of national disputes and the power to enforce decisions. When speaking in Edinburgh recently in support of this view Lord Davies said: “Society must build a new temple of peace and justice, and if it is to be a durable structure its foundations must rest upon seven pillars—morality, justice, freedom, force,_ democracy, federalism and education.” Those conditions may make it seem to be a distant goal, but the thing tliat matters now is that in some way the feet of the nations should be set in the right path.