Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MAY, 16, 1934. STARK PACIFISM?

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 114, 16 May 1934, Page 8

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MAY, 16, 1934. STARK PACIFISM?

Neither the New Zealand Educational Institute nor the Wellington Branch of the League of Nations Union can be congratulated upon the contributions to the- defence problem, or, if they prefer to put it so, to the peace problem, which they have respectively made during the last few days. From the Educational Institute, at any rate, we have a right to expect that its treatment of such a subject would be distinguished by clearness of thought, by a sense of public duty, and if not by a clear recognition, at least by some faint perception, of the dangers that are threatening Europe and of their significance for New Zealand. Every one of these expectations is disappointed by the resolution which, after full notice—for it was a remit—was carried by the Educational Institute conference at its meeting on Friday:—

That the Institute- declares itself whole-heartedly against war, and recommends its members and branches to link up and support in every way the League of Nations TJiiion.

It is not to the discredit of the Educational Institute that its members showed themselves less than halfhearted in .their acceptance of this whole-hearted condemnation of war. They are doubtless unanimous in their objection to typhoid fever, but they could not be expected to pass a resolution against it with enthusiasm. On the contrary, before wasting time on an apparently harmless and even laudable proposition, they might reasonably inquire what was behind it, whether the passing of it would help or hinder the'd'octors and the sanitary authorities in their warfare against typhoid, and whether the previous question .was not the best way of dealing with a resolution which could do no possible good.and might create misunderstanding and mischief.

The qualifications of the mover of this resolution to give the teachers of New Zealand or anybody' else a lead on a practical issue were sufficiently indicated by his, astounding statement that "a new generation, which knew only the so-called glory of war, was growing up." A man who had spent the last fifteen years in Mars, where presumably, the atmosphere is always martial; could not have blundered more absurdly than this observer on the spot. A whole generation is represented as growing up in a faith which has not been imparted in a single school and probably not in a single household. The mistake that has been made in the Anzac celebrations indicates that even in our military circles' the tendency has been in exactly ' the opposite direction. On the day when the spirit of the soldier is strongest and the "so-called glory of war" might be expected to burn brightest, it is now recognised by the soldiers themselves that far too much stress has been laid on the note of sorrow and suffering and loss which is of course inseparable and must always remain inseparable from the occasion. The mistake has not yet been fully rectified, but when it has it will not be to make room for that worship of the glory of war which in Germany permeates the whole nation, but in New Zealand is only to be found in the imagination of the pacifist.

rl-^■s%bxe out from om«» said traribaldi. I offer neither quarters nor provisions, nor wages; I offer hunger,thirst, battles, death. Let him who loves his conntry with his heart and not with his lips only, follow mo.

The only glory for which the young men of Rome streamed out in answer to that forbidding call was the glory of doing their duty in the service of their country. Just the same kind of glory drew our young men across I the seas in 1914-18, and should another call come may be expected to do the same again. The Wellington Branch of the League of Nations Union, which had been crippled for years by its strong pacifist bias, but had recently adopted a more rational policy, has certainly done itself no good by its latest The statement with which it filled a column of our space on Monday was wordy, evasive, and weak, much of it was quite futile, and hot a little of it was worse. It purports to be a reply to the express • contentions attributed to Rear-Admiral Burges Watson "that further war is inevitable, if not imminent; and that accordingly New Zealand should be prepared to subscribe to a policy of preparedness," and to his implied contention "that the League of Nations has been a failure." That further war is inevitable is certainly not an essential

part of the case for preparedness, but, if it was, it certainly would not be disturbed by the arguments brought against it. In a practical world it is utterly useless to argue that "war is obviously the result of human action, and as human action depends upon the exercise of free will, it is an utter fallacy to argue that war is inevitable" and.then to quote the profound remark made by Mr. Bonar Law more than twenty years ago: "I do not believe in these inevitable wars." To speak by the card, there is nothing inevitable in this queer world of ours. There is no certainty that man will ever fight again, nor even that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in both cases as practical men we are compelled to build upon probabilities. That there is a strong probability, or even that there is a probability,! of future wars, is quite enough to justify Rear-Admiral Burges Watson in.a matter which is one not of logicchopping but of practice. But proba-. bilities and practice are things which his'critics,, sticking to the "high a priori road" of abstraction, prefer to leave alone. If, however, we may follow them on to that road for a moment, we should like to ask whether, if it is "an utter fallacy to argue that war is inevitable," it is sound logic to assume that perpetual peace is inevitable. Yet that assumption seems to underlie their argument. If perpetual peace is not inevitable, is it not their duty to come down from their abstractions and their Utopian hopes, and to deal with the probabilities which, for practical purposes, are of the essence of the matter. We have not noticed a word in their whole column which suggests.a knowledge that anything has happened in Europe during the last twelve months, or is happening today, which demands the abandonment of old dreams and the, anxious consideration of new problems and new perils. It is time for them to wake up and face.realities.

If the first charge against the Rear-Admiral is his belief in the inevitableness of war, the second is that he infers "that New Zealand must be prepared to subscribe to a policy of preparedness." His critics have found so easy a mark in the first point that they have had little to say about the second. What do they think about it? Do they believe that New Zealand will best conduct: her own safety and her duty to the Empire -by "a policy of unpreparedness"? Or has their devotion'to the paralysed League of Nations blinded them to the very existence of the Empire and %vhat it has meant, and in the1 opinion of most of us, still means, to New Zealand? We see neither patriotism nor Imperialism but only stark pacifism in this manifesto of the Wellington Branch of the League of Nations Union, and should be thankful to find that we are wrong.