CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 56, 4 September 1934, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE

FACE THE FACTS

N.Z. LEAGUE OF NATIONS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,- — Mny I bo'permitted to reply further to your article "Face tho Facts" in your issue of August 10 in which you lay down a challenge to the New Zealand League of Nations Union, and also

to your subsequent comments on my letter of the Kith instant. This appeared in your issue of the 22nd.

Briefly the position is this. You attribute to the New Zealand League of Nations Union a "pacifist and miliImperial tendency." On your own admission yon used to suspect the 'British union of tho same things. But the action of the recent conference on April 13 dispelled your suspicions so far as it is concerned. These two resolutions of the conference reassured you:—

(1) "To preserve peace and security, members of the League of Nations must be ready to co-opcrato in the defence of a member which has wrongfully been attacked.

(2) "Peace in Europe and in the world can be preserved only by collective action 'through the League of Nations or the Pact of Paris and a policy of British isolation is impossible and undesirable."

These two statements summarise what lis known as the "collective system" of dealing with international emergencies. They embody the- idea of international restraint on international lawbreakers. It is the principle of international maintonancc of law and order [for which the Lciigue of Nations stands, as against the policy of self-isolating ruthless nationalism which is still the practical programme of most*'-nations. You seek to use these resolutions to belittle the New Zealand union. Let the Now Zealand union take similar action and so prove their loyalty to tho British union, you taunt in effect. But our New Zealand union, apparently unknown to you, had already taken similar action. True, it had'not passed the resolution in conference. Its annual conference is not until next month. But it had gone a step further than to carry a resolution in conference. It had urged the adoption of this same collective .system on our New Zealand Crovcrnment.

Now that we have drawn your attention to the fact, you reply in effect, without apology: "Yes, that you sent such a letter is a fact, but you didn't really moan what you said." When your charge of inaction is disproved, you substitute achargo of "inaccuracy in tho uso of words." Admitting our action, you deny to it "any fact, sentiment, or opinion' that really needs emphasising." Had then this collective plan already boon adopted by our New Zealand Government? Is it a matter of no moment that it should bo adopted? May I ask what steps your paper has taken to impress the importiineo of this question on community or Government? ' Is there any question more vital, or docs it "not need emphasising"?

But to return to your question, "Is tho New Zealand union prepared to encourage New Zealand in tho adoption of tho collective system just as heartily as tho parent union encouraged the British Government?" Our answer is absolutely and wholeheartedly "Yes." "Wo thought wo had proved our answer by our action. "We would welcomo the full support of your paper in the advocacy of the collective idea that it might, become effective in Now Zealand and elsewhere. "If iii place of this cooperative defence we revert to the old anarchy of 'each being stronger than tho other,' we shall not be safe whatever our armament." I hope that you wilt give prominence to this recent statement of Sir Norman Angell and that as a paper you will take to heart these words of Mr. Anthony Eden: "If in these times we will eschew carping criticism and reaffirm our determination to uphold tho Leaguo and all it 'stands for, wo shall, I am confident, have done more for' the cause of peace than may at first sight appear." Sir, some traditional fallacies persist in the community only by reason of editorial support. One of them is that tho League of Nations Union docs not face facts. Another is that it is unpatriotic to seek to establish world peace or to substitute co-operation for competition in our relations with other peoples. Another is that massed armaments alone can establish a seuso of security. Still another, .which by your editorial reference you support, is that the ostrich foolishly buries its head in the sand. "Pure myth" is the term used by Chambers's Encyclopaedia for this traditional fancy. Wider knowledge and unbiased appreciation of fact dissipate such delusions. To sum up, wo affirm, as the British union did, the two resolutions quoted •above. Further, wo have urged this collective system upon the Government of our land. Even though it widens our responsibilities, we would stand behind it. This is what the League stands for what tho British union stands for, and what the New Zealand union stands for. Will the "Evening Post" tell us plainly if it stands for tho same programme? —I am, etc., F. IT. WILKINSON, Deputy Chairman, Dominion Council, August 2D. fWe Tefer to this subject in. our leading columns today.—Ed.]