Evening Post. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1933. DRIFT AND DANGER

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 65, 14 September 1933, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1933. DRIFT AND DANGER

Close on the heels of the fifth Pacific Relations Conference has followed the first British Commonwealth Relations Conference, and again Canada has supplied the place of meeting/ The existence of the Institute of 1 Pacific Relations, with its American initiative, its headquarters at Honolulu, and its biennial conferences, is a fact of which no newspaper reader has any excuse for ignorance, but the auspices and organisation of the Conference which is now in session at Toronto have not been disclosed. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, which was [founded in London by Mr. Lionel Curtis shortly after the War, may safely, however, be credited with the initiative, but what affiliated or kindred oversea organisations have been co-operating with it we are unable to say. It is, however, eminently appropriate that what appears to be the first of this Institute's public oversea undertakings should have been the organisation of a British Commonwealth Relations Conference. A clearer understanding and a closer co-operation between the self-govern-ing units of the Empire was the object of the Round Table organisations which Mr. Curtis established about four years before the War, and of the magazine which described itself as "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire," and, from that day to this has spoken with unsurpassed authority on every aspect of Imperial affairs. But the Institute of International Affairs which came into existence almost simultaneously with the League of Nations was the outcome of the wider outlook which the War had brought. It was necessary for the nations to understand one another better if the Armageddon which had shaken civilisation was not to be followed by another which might destroy it. The foundation of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the transformation of the "Round Table)," which now called itself "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Commonwealth," into an organ of world politics also faithfully represented the general reaction of British opinion and policy to the lessons of the War. Britain, which by reason of her insular position, her world-wide commerce, and her worldwide Empire had long been the least provincial of the nations, was compelled to become more internationally minded than ever. But the hope that the minds of the Dominions would experience a similar enlargement has been utterly disappointed. Provincial before the War and free to do as they pleased when Britain was compelled to take up Germany's challenge, they rose to the occasion with a wonderful spirit and saw the fight through in a manner which makes their performance one of the great events .of history. But history will also have to record that their Imperialism exhausted itself in that magnificent effort, and that they fell back immediately afterwards into a state of apathy and lassitude and irresponsibility which was far worse than it was before the War, was far leas excusable because they had in the meantime seen the light to which they now shut their eyes, and seemed far less likely to be curable because it was accompanied by a conceit and an arrogance of which there had been very little trace before. Through the irony of fate this degeneracy of the patriotism of the Dominions was due in large measure to the valour of their soldiers, to the admission which it procured for them to the Peace Conference on the footing of independence, and to their subsequent admission on the same footing as members of the League of Nation*. It was natural to hope that this great experience of the responsibilities of world politics both in war and in peace would make for the dignity and the security of the Empire by fortifying the statesmanship of the Dominiqns with the very elements in which it had been lacking, but it has had exactly the opposite effect. Instead of enlarging their minds it has merely swelled their heads, and so has made for weakness instead of strength. The recognition of Dominion nationhood at Versailles and Geneva had not "ipso facto" dissolved the Empire, but it naturally stimulated the demand that London should be equally hospitable. The Balfour formula accordingly recognised the Dominions' equality of status, but said not a word about any obligations. Aftcj the Statute of Westminster had completed the one-sided process, it was quite worth while to invite a conference to consider how much of the Empire is left. From the New Zealand point of view it was appropriate that the delegates to the British Commonwealth Relations Conference should have been welcomed to Toronto by Sir Robert Borden. Two or three years before the War, when he was fighting the battle of an lEmpire Navy, his was a name to conjure with in this country, but he has approved of the disintegratory course which Canada has since taken, and New Zealand would like lo hear what he thinks of llie results up lo dale. But

his vague and largely interrogative address to the delegates throws no light at all on the subject or on the agenda of the Conference.

The present Constitution of the Empire, said Sir Kobert, is a tremendous experiment" iv governance. To imperil its unity would invito disaster to humanity, for how can the League of Nations, in whoso service to the world I am a resolute believer, how can such a League- survive if our Commonwealth may not endure? Is not its continued existence the most vital of all considerations affecting our future destiny?

The present Constitution of the Empire is indeed "tremendous" in the old sense of that epithet as fearful or terrifying, but to describe At, as an "experiment in governance" is to pay it a compliment which it docs not deserve. It is an experiment not in governance but in nongovernance. To turn a ship adrift without a captain or a crew is not seamanship, but the negation of it, and that is the kind of treatment that the Empire has received from the socalled statesmanship which is embodied in the Statute of Westminster.

When Sir Robert Borderi adds that "to imperil its [the Empire's] unity would invite disaster, to humanity" he passes sentence on those who are responsible for the Statute of Westminster; for the Empire is undoubtedly in peril already and as the direct result of their work. With no organised defence, with no organised government, with no sort of guidance but "go as you please," and with signs of danger on all sides, the Empire is drifting, and we trust that Sir Robert and his Canadian friends whose eagerness for an untrammelled independence has contributed to this result will show the Conference how the threatened "disaster to humanity" may be averted.