Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 5, 1926. MORE PACIFIST LOGIC

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 4, 5 July 1926, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, JULY 5, 1926. MORE PACIFIST LOGIC

One point at any rate in our article on "Pacifist Logic" is confirmed and emphasised by the reply of tho executive of the Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union which we published on Saturday. Tho need in which the League stands of being saved from its friends becomes more, urgent with every step in tho disastrous advocacy which tho Rev. Dr. Gibb and his colleagues conduct on its behalf. As we romarked in the articlo to which they object: No greater disservice could be rendered to tho League than by representing it as an organisation of idealists who are bent on reforming the world by pious resolutions and edifying platitudes and a deliberate blindness to the renlitics of life. To the long record of the disservice which has been rendered to the League along, these lines by the Wellington branch of tho Leaguo of Nations Union an important addition is made by tho latest pronouncement of its executive. The same blindnoss to facts, tho same faith in phrases, the same concentration upon desirable ends and inattention to the practicability of the means, and the same antagonism to the common spnso and the patriotic sentiment of tho country arc displayed as before. AH that we have gained by our plea for a broader and more practical treatment of the problem is another iiood of eloquenco of exactly the same kind and the suggestion that our own attitude to tho Leaguo is, if not insincere, at any rate indefinite. Wo arc more surprised than sorry that our defence of Commander Middleton for the references in his Navy League speech to "potential enemies" or to the need of securing peace by being prepared for war has produced any effect. What was originally denounced as a "hoary and deadly figment" is still a "hoary old platitude," which, though it looks a little less severe, cannot, we fear, have been so intended. But we note with satisfaction that our contention that Commander Middleton's critics and everybody else who is not prepared to advocate immediate and unconditional disarmament without waiting for other nations to do tho same are also countenancing the same "fijment" has been completely ignored. The Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union, following the lead of tho paront organisation, '' advocates disarmament by mutual consont of all the Powers," and its executive asks whether we object to that. We cortainly do not, On tho contrary, we strongly approve of it, but we recognise that even a substantial reduction of armaments by universal agreementfmay take years, and that "complete disarmament may take generations, to realise. What is to be done in the meantime? As the League of Nations Union, and even its Wellington branch, concede that complete disarmament is impossible except by agreement of all the Powers, they are committed to the support of armaments of some kind until this agreement is reached. Presumably they recognise that the complete disarmament of the British Empire alone would make not for peace but for war. If so, they desire that in the interests of peace it should continue to bo ready for war. Though they do not know it, Commander Middleton's assailants are therefore relying upon the same "hoary and deadly figment" which they condemn him for supporting. Though we put this point as plainly as possible in our previous articlo, it has, as wo have said, been completely ignored. Yet, in justice to themselves no less than to the Commander, his critics ought to face it frankly. Do members of the executive of the Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union favour the immediato and complete scrapping of the British Navy? or tho immediate and complete cessation of the meagre contribution which Now Zealand has been making to it? If not, why not? and what becomes of their anathemas of preparations for war as a moans of safeguarding peace? Continued evasion of questions that go to the root of the matter cannot do their cause any good, and recognising that this statement applies equally to both sides we will do our best to answer the conundrum submitted from another of Commander Middleton's speeches. He is quoted as having said at St. Patrick's College on Ist June: There aro poople who talk about various Leagues aud Treaties, and all such ways of keeping peace in the world; but it is deeds, not words, that aro going to do that. It is wiser to rely on a good Navy, Army, and Air Force than on a strip of paper. These words are described by tho executive of tho Wellincton branch of

the League of Nations Union as "an attack on tho whole conception of the Leaguo of Nations," and they throw down the following challenge: Does the "Evening Post" support the attitude of the gallant Commander as cxpressod in the above quotation? A reply to this question will 'show more clearly where "The Post" stands in regard to tho League of Nations than any number of more platitudinous generalities. On the subject of "platitudinous generalities" we have no hesitation in saying that the draftsman of the statement unihr review has sho'i'ii himsc.'f an expert, but in taking up his challenge we shall ondoavour to avoid platitude and evasion and to be as clear and specific as possiblo. We arc not sure that Commander Middleton's words are correctly described as "an attack on the whole conception of the League." If they are, we certainly cannot support them, and we regret that his language was not so clear as to be free from cavil in that sense. We recognise that tho Leaguo is a valuable institution, that it has done a great work, aud that under wise management much more may be expected of it. Wo recogniso, on tho other hand, that the League has its limitations and that among its dangers aro the too confident expectations of some - of its best friends. We entirely dissent from Commander Middleton if he intonded to convoy that tho League is a futile or mischievous body which it would bo wise to leavo alone, Wo entirely agree with him if he meant that there is danger not in tho League itself but in the "people who talk about the various Leagues and Treaties" as though thoy could ever be such automatic safeguards of the peace as to dispense with the need of self-defence. When tho Commander adds, "It is • wiser to rely on a good Navy, Army, and Air Force than on a strip of paper," we arc again in complete agreement. The British Navy is a better protection for New Zealand than the Covenant of the League, and the League itself would bo deprived of its most powerful support if it had not a strong British Navy behind it.