Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1930.

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 139, 16 June 1930, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1930.

In his presidential address to the Dominion Conference of the New Zealand Branch of the League of Nations Union, which was held at Timaru on Wednesday and Thursday, the Rev. Dr. Gibb did not take a very sanguine view of the position and prospects of the Union in this country. I want to say most emphatically, lie said, that I for ono am wholly dissatisfied with the little interest in the work of the Union; . . . What can we hope to .do with our little army behind us? So often are we doomed to dissent from Dr. Gibb that it gives us very great pleasure to be able to agree with him on this occasion, but even now our satisfaction with his dissatisfaction is qualified by a not unfriendly regret. It is surely deplorable that so staunch a champion of peace should have been so overcome by his feelings as to be driven to a military metaphor in order to express them. May we venture to suggest that "little flock" would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the organisation and of its President than "little army," and that the necessary change should be made in the official record? At the same time, it must be admitted that the provocation was great. It is perfectly obvious that the League of Nations is doing admirable work, and that the British League of Nations Union has contributed powerfully to its success is patent to everybody. But it is equally beyond denial that the New Zealand Branch of the Union is not doing good work, and that the cause of the League would have been much stronger in this cpuntry if it had not been handicapped by sincere and disinterested but injudicious and mischievous help. The League of Nations has very few enemies in New Zealand except those that the New Zealand local branch of the' Union has made. If it could have been saved from its friends it would have stood far higher in the public estimation. Commenting on the President's strong dissatisfaction with "our little army," the "Timaru Herald" of Friday last wrote as follows:— The reports presented to 'tlie Conference speak for themselves; weak in membership and weaker in finance, what can the Union do? The organisation bearing the imposing title of the New Zealand Branch of the League of Nations Union drew into its treasury last year a little over £100! Five branches (all, save Wellington, in the- South Island) contributed nearly £80 of the total revenue. The City of Christchurch and district managed to scrape together and pay into the Union's funds during the year the sum of 17s Cd! . . . In face of the obvious weakness of the New Zealand Branch of the League of Nations, can the Conference which deliberated in Tiuiaru claim to speak with the voice of the people? . An organisation so poorly supported cannot even claim to speak for the very small pacifist minority of the people. The membership may make a better showing if the executive acts upon the instruction of the Conference that it should consider "the possibility of encouraging the affiliation and corporate membership of industrial organisations." But no considerable financial help i 3 to be expected from the affiliation of the Labour Unions. It is remarkable that the contribution of I7s 6d from Christchurclj and district, where Labour and pacifism are strong, came from a membership of 170 —which represents about l^d a head. The fundamental mistake of those who have brought the League of Nations into such ill-repute in New Zealand is that, in disregard to the terms of the Covenant of the League, and even of the implications of its very title, they have acted as though it were an association of cosmopolitan amateurs for the propagation of pacifism. But it is not a League of Pacifists, nor a League of individuals of any kind, nor a "League of Notions," but a League of "Nations." Its units are nations, and having deliberative and advisory but not executive powers it can only look to nations to carry out its decisions, and as the world is at present constituted the ultimate sanction of some of these decisions is war or the power to make war. This is no militaristic gloss that we are making on the title and functions of the League; it is expressly recognised and stated in the plainest possible terms in the Covenants of the League. Here are some of the relevant provisions:— ARTICLE 10. The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression, or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the moans by which this obligation shall bo fulfilled. ARTICLE 11. Any war, or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the %hoie League, and the League shall

take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. . . . ARTICLE IC. Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covonants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall, "ipso facto," be deemed to have committed an act of war against all olher members of tho League. . . . It shall be the duty of tho Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval, or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the Covenants of the League. New Zealand is in her own right a member of the League, and may at any time be called upon by its Council to take action under these Articles of the Covenant which she has signed. What would she do if such a call came? Would she quit and make default and say that the Covenant of the League is after all but a scrap of paper? There.is no need to argue with the pacifists, if any, who would advocate such dishonour, but the most moderate of (hem fail to see that in arguing for the scrapping or attenuating of our meagre defence forces they are arguing that we should deprive ourselves of the power to discharge our obligations under the Covenant. And the argument becomes Gilbertian in its topsyturveydom when it is in the name ■' of our obligations to the League that we are asked to make it impossible to discharge them! Here is the pure milk of the word of pacifism as submitted to the Conference by the mover of the Auckland remit against compulsory training:— The position was that they could either decide to support the League and strengthen it, or they could assume war to be inevitable and prepare for it. Then if war was inevitable and it was prepared for them they would have war. No one wanted war, and they should trust the League, and thoroughly strengthen and support it. No one wants war, and therefore we should trust the League and strengthen it in its efforts for peace by incapacitating ourselves for giving a material part of the help that it has prescribed. The Conference carried the remit by '21 votes to 8, and then showed a pacifism of an even more irresponsible type than that of the Auckland Branch by striking the word "constructive" out of its recommendation of "the consideration of a constructive substitute for military training among youths and the pupils of secondary schools." After its treatment of military training and the Singapore Base the recruiting for Dr. Gibb's "little army" will become harder than ever.