Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1934. FACE THE FACTS

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 35, 10 August 1934, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1934. FACE THE FACTS

Both the League of Nations Union in. Great Britain, and the affiliated Union in this country have some times been accused of a pacifist and anti-Imperial tendency, but, so far as the parent Union is concerned, whatever ground for suspicion there may have been was cut away by the two resolutions which were carried at the conference held in London on April 13 to consider the need of maintaining and strengthening the League. The text of these resolutions was as follows:— 1. To preserve peace and security members of the League of Nations must bo ready to co-operate in the defence of a member which ha^ wrongfully been attacked. \ ' 2. Peace in Europe and in tJio world can be preserved only by collective action through tho League of Nations or the Pact of Paris, and a policy of British isolation is impossible and undesirable. The first of these resolutions was proposed by Sir Austen Chamberlain, perhaps the most level-headed and the most influential of Britain's unofficial statesmen. It was not as the knight-errant of Europe but for her own protection that Britain must, in his opinion, watch the quarrels of Europe and be prepared if necessary to intervene. I .hold that our safety is not in isolation, he said, but in tho recognition'that tho aggressor is tho common enemy of mankind, and in tho establishment of a system which makes it certain that against tho aggressor there will bo mobilised a force which is irresistible, and which must deny to tho aggressor the benefit which lie hoped to doriyo from the aggression. That the mobilisation for which Sir Austen pleaded against the aggressor was meant to include the mobilisation of naval and -military force is made quite clear by the context and by the terms of his resolution. But any conceivable opening for cavil is stopped by the argument of Sir Norman Angell, who seconded the resolution, that "national defence would never be effective on a basis of isolation or 'each for himself,'"and that the principle under which. ''the potential power of the whole community" saved each householder from robbery must be applied to the community of nations. It was a remarkable illustration of Britain's solidarity and of her determination to face the facts that Sir Norman Angell, whose famous book on "The Great Illusion" has given him a high place among the most powerful y and most sagacious prophets of peace, should have supported such a resolution, and those who had mistaken him for a pacifist must have been shocked by his arguments. He is far 100 sagacious a friend of peace to stand for peace at any price. The moving of the second resolution by so staunch an Imperialist as Sir Edward Grigg, M.P., was significant from the opposite standpoint. His faith in the Empire has not been shaken, but he sees that it is only "by collective action through the League ■-, of Nations" that Britain "can ensure the peace of the world and her own safety. "The reign of law between nations guaranteed by all nations is," said Sir Edward, "the only road to security and peace." ■It might be said that these resolutions do little more than reaffirm existing obligations, but the emphatic confirmation of these obligations by the League of Nations Union under the leadership we have mentioned is by no means a small matter^ and the repudiation of a policy'of British isolation as "impossible, and undesirable" makes a very important addition. Omitting the reference to financial and' econoiftid-: sanctions as immaterial to our argument, the obligations of Article .16 of .'the Covenant in regard to war are as follows :— Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its Covenants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall "ipso facto" be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other mombors of the League. ... If. shall be tho duty oil tho Council in such case to reeommond to tho several Governments concerned what effective military, naval, or air force the members of tho League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to -be used to protect the Covenants of the League. Mr. Baldwin, Sir John Simon, and others have repeatedly declared Britain's determination to honour her obligations both under the Locarno Treaty and under the Covenant, and in regard to the Covenant they now have the unanimous support of the League of Nations Union. Without apology or explanation New Zealand has backed out of the obligations which Mr. Coates as Prime Minister declared her eager to ' assume under the Locarno Treaty, but the obligations under the Covenant of the League are identical with ihoso of Britain

and still stand. Is she prepared to j affirm them as emphatically asj j Britain has done? and is the New | j Zealand League of Nations Union j j prepared to encourage her lo do so as heartily as the parent Union has encouraged Britain? If, as the secretary of the Dominion Council of the New Zealand League of Nations Union declares in a letter which appears in another column, "our standpoint is that of the British League of Nations Union," the local organisation ■will have no difficulty in answering the last of our questions in the affirmative, and in .undertaking a propaganda which will be of .far greater service lo the cause of peace than anything it has tackled lately. To say that the local Union does not favour unilateral disarmament is neither here nor there. To preach disarmament of any kind to a country which is already disarmed below the danger point is no help to the cause of peace. Our correspondent quotes the D.eputy Chairman of the Dominion Council as saying: If wo were not hoodwinked by warmongers and obsessed by fears and ensnared by traditional viewpoints, we would surely recogniso that there is no policy that is sane and safe and practicable save that of mutual disarmament which will remove the grounds for fear of aggression on the one hand and temptation to aggression on the other hand. In the world today the "cranks" are those who are so onoeyod that they can see only their owe. nation and think only in terms of their own nation's defence. The suggestion that the disarmament which is contemplated would remove the fear of aggression and the temptation to aggression is a gross delusion. Unless the safeguards of peace are strengthened at the same time, It is just as likely to increase those evils. As the "Round Table" argues in the leading article of its March number, effective sanctions against any violation of a Disarmament Treaty would have to be provided if it is to have a chance of success. The article continues as follows:— ' What does this moan so far as tho British Commonwealth, is concerned? tho nations of the Commonwealth aro already wholly pledged to tho League system and the Kellogg Pact. They are parties to almost all the treaties that provide for pacific procedure and arbitration. They are committed to Article. 16 of the Covenant. We consider that thoy should now bo willing to onter into whatever system of collective sanctions against an aggressor may bo necessary to make a disarmament treaty possible or pacific procedure effective, provided, in tho first place, that the United States is also a party to such a system, and provided, in tho second place, that so far as Europo is concerned, both Russia' and Germany, as well as Franco and Italy and tho smaller Powers, are also parties to it. Unless we can dismiss such authorities as the "Round Table" as mere "warmongers" who are "ensnared by traditional viewpoints," any effective disarmament scheme will increase the obligations of New Zealand and other parts of the Empire instead of reducing them. To say that we hate war and favour unilateral disarmament will help us no more than baying at the mooii. Like Britain herself we must face the facts and play the man.