PACIFISM AND PEACE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 3, 3 July 1926, Page 10

PACIFISM AND PEACE

THE DECIDING FORCE

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

WELLINGTON. BRANCH REPLIES

TO CRITICISM.

Recently the "Evening Post," in-its leading columns, criticised the Wellington Iraneh of the League of Nations on its declaration on the subject of disarmament. The views expressed by the branch were also the subject of comment by correspondents. The executive of the Wellington branch of the League forwards the following reply to the criticism:— It is unfortunate that'the "Evening Post" did not sufficiently acquaint itself with the remarks of Commander Middleton before. launching an attack upon the Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union. Incidentally, the attack was upon the personnel of the branch,'and the literary style of its pronouncement on the question of disarmament, rather than on the sub-ject-matter contained in that declaration. When world questions arc under review such pettiness is too insignificant to deserve serious consideration. It is desirable that discussion should bo confined to essential and relevant isssues. The Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union protested against certain remarks made by Commander Middleton, in the course of which he not only supported that hoary old platitude "If you would have peace prepare for war," but, inferentially at any rate, he attacked the League of Nations. Speaking at St. Patrick's College on Tuesday, Ist June, ho is reported to have said to the boys there:— .There aro people who talk about various Leagues and Treaties, and all such ways of keeping peace in the world, but it is deeds not words that are going to do that. It is wiser to rely on a good Navy, Army, and Air Force than on a strip of paper. If the words 'used mean anything, that statement is ,an attack on the whole conception of the League of Nations. Further, it clearly implies a lack of good fai^h on the part of the Powers which signed the Treaty of Versailles. It treats their so'emnly pledged word and bond with the most cynical distrust. Does the "Evening Post" support the attitude of the gallant ■■ commander as expressed in the above quotation? A reply to this question will show more clearly where "The Post" stands in regard to the League of Nations than any number of mere platitudinous generalities. "SCRAP Or PAPER" ERA. i According to Commander Middleton, 'when endeavouring to inculcate this doctrine into tho minds of the young , (if he was correctly reported), the Great War was fought in vain, at least as far as the sacredness of treaties and obligations between- nations is concerned. "The war to end war was a. failure. We are still in the "scrap of paper" era. Falsehood and faithlessness among the nations is still the dominant and deciding force. Tha world has not been made safe for democracy, or anything elae. Nation must still spring at tuo throat of nation until civilisation perishes from off the earth. This is the gospel of despair and decadence. We refuse to accept it. Wo protest against it.being thrust upon the children of the Dominion. The League of Nations Union will do everything. possible to counteract its evil influences. Commander Middleton implies in your issue of Slst June that those who advocate disarmament by mutual consent of the world Powers "think that by shutting their-eyes tight and continuing to murmur the blessed word 'Peace' there will in consequence be no war." Such persons exist only in the commander's imagination. The memberg of the League of Nations Union know full well that the murmuring of tho word "Peace" will not bring peace. But they also know that neither will the shouting for war-like preparation avert war. One-thing is absolutely certain; if competition in armaments between the nations is going to continue another world-war is inevitable. The attitude' of the League of Nations Union on the subject of disarmament was clearly stated in our last pronouncement. For the benefit of Commander Middleton, and some of your other correspondents, we beg to repeat what we said then:— The way of the League of Nations Union, and of all lovers of peace on earth, is to face squarely the many difficult and perplexing problems of our modern civilisation, the many causes of international, disputes and animosities,, which, if allowed to develop unchecked, lead to active hostilities; and to explore any conceivable and practicable avenue of adjusting difficulties and settling quar.rels between the nations in a reasonable and common-senso fashion. "The League of Nations Union -advocates disarmament by mutual consent of all the Powers. Is there anything in that statement that "The Post" can seriously object to? Does it quarrel with any portion? Writing in "Headway," the journal of tho British League of Nations Union, for May, Kear-Admiral J. D. Allen, C.8., expresses our point of view exactly. He says: — The reason, the only reason, for armaments is mutual mistrust and suspicion. Thus it follows that if you can reduce mutual mistrust and suspicion you reduce your armaments in proportion. The greater tho mistrust and suspicion the greater will be the armaments, and the more you can reduce mutual mistrust and suspicion tho more you can reduce armaments. Every man and woman in the world can do his or' her bit towards attaining! inestimable benefit by supporting the Leaguo of Nations in trying to got armaments steadily reduced by common agree- . ment. THE ONLY METHOD. As an organisation the League of Nations Union believes that tho method of disarmament by mutual agreement is the only practicable one; and without disarmament there is little hope of peace for the world. Lord Eobert Cecil, who is a member of tho present British Conservative Government, said in March last:—"Without disarmament I see no solid hopo of security in the present or of permanent peace in the future. Fortunately the broad thesis is not disputed. The vast mass of the people definitely desire disarmament."

Tho League of Nations has not' yet done all that was expected of it, and the failure to admit Germany to mem-' borship in the Council was not an omen of happy augury, but unquestionably the League has in the few years of its existence scored many successes, and some of those of a momentous character. In the future succqss of the League of Nations is centred the world's hope of peace. There will no doubt continue to be short-sighted persons who fail to realise this, but it is intolerable that the minds of our people, particularly of our children, should be biased by misleading statements against an instrumentality which, under God, lias the promise and potency of preserving the peace of the world by substituting the arbitrament of reason and law for tho brutality of war in tho settlement of international disputes, and which will one day succeed in achieving the outlawry of this sheer abomination.