Evening Post. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1934. LEAGUE AND EMPIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 98, 23 October 1934, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1934. LEAGUE AND EMPIRE

In a letter which appears in another column the Rev. Lawrence A. North, of Christchurch, pays our leading article of Wednesday last on "Our Duty to the League" the compliment of saying that it "calls for some comment," but he does not carry the compliment so far as to include in his comments a single word that could be construed as a reply to the weight of our argument, or that displays any evidence that he understands, or desires to understand, what it was. The Assembly of the New Zealand Baptist Union was, he says, "confronted this year with the necessity of declaring its attitude towards war." Our complaint was that it evaded this necessity by an ambiguous resolution, which, though it had rejected the extravagant pacifism of our correspondent's resolution, could still be given a pacifist construction; and on this point his letter proves that we were right. But that the conference had no intention of replacing one extravagant resolution by another received positive confirmation in the two practical methods by which it urged its members to work for the total abolition of war, namely, (1) Being foremost in their support of the machinery of international cooperation provided by the League of Nations; (2) Insisting upon all the implications of the pledge given by our nation under the Kellogg Pact. Regarding the second of these points, which is of minor importance, there is no need even to recapitulate our previous argument, but we may add that the only definite "implication" of the Kellogg Pact which we are aware of is one which gives the pacifist no encouragement. Before the Pact was signed it was laid down by Mr. Kellogg himself on April 28, 1928, as foilows:— There is nothing in tho American draft of an anti-war treaty which re» stricts or impairs in any way tho right of self-defenco. That right is inherent in every sovereign State and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion, and it alono is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defence. So axiomatic and so fundamental is the right of self-defence that it is "inherent in every sovereign Slate and implicit in every treaty," and it was on the faith of this ruling, which none of the States appears to have disputed, though some of them would have preferred lo have had it made explicit, that the Kellogg Pact was signed. Self-defence remains the right of every State, just as it was before, and if self-defence was also the duty of every Stale, as we believe that in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of Christians it was, it remains so still. We are indebted to our correspondent and to the Baptist Conference for the attention that they have called to the one supreme and indisputable implication of the Kellogg Pact, .But, as we have said, it was upon the more important issue of New' Zealand's relation to the League of Nations that the weight of our argument was rested. The Covenant of ihe League is of greater importance than the Kellogg Pact because it is directly concerned with practice. Having neither "teelh" nor organisation of any kind, the Kellogg Pact is little more than a pious aspiration. The League of Nations has a permanent and business-like organisation, through which it disposes from day to day of a great deal of useful routine work, serves as a convenient centre for international contacts, and has from time to time rendered invaluable large-scale service by the adjustment of disputes and the averting of wars. The League is not without teeth, but they have not proved to be as powerful as they were expected to be. The mere showing of its teeth has often been enough to remind its weaker members of their obligations and to keep them in the straight path, but when one of its most powerful members, bent on violating the Covenant, has met a reminder of its wrongdoing by showing its own teelh, the League has had to back down. 0» paper the Covenant supplies the League with all the power that it needs for the coercion of a recalcitrant member, but its successful defiance by Japan and Germany shows that in practice this power may fail just where it is most needed. , It may be inferred from the appeal of the Baptist Union Conference to its members to do everything possible for the total abolition of war "especially by being foremost in their support of the machinery of international co-operation provided by the League of Nations" that it was the peaceful methods of conciliation and arbitration that the conference had in view. The basis, however, of the Covenant as a bulwark against war is not pacifism but warmaking. Obedience to the Covenant is secured by sanctions, and, as Mr. Baldwin said, "the moment they were up against sanctions they were up against war." Lord Lothian declares Mr. Baldwin to be "profoundly right," and adds that, in the absence of federation, "the sanction behind, any collective system is. in fart,

war or a threat of war." Iv the Covenant war is expressly named as tho ultimate sanction. In ihe event of certain violations, Article 16 calls upon the Council "to recommend to the several Governments what effective military, naval, or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute lo the armed forces to be used to protect ihe covenants of the League."

The irony of the position is indeed astonishing. The very same people who object to New Zealand's putting her defences in order tell us to look to the League to preserve the world's peace, yet the League itself tells us that it cannot keep the peace except through the military, naval, and air forces of its members. Exactly the same contradiction was illustrated on a larger scale when the same British pacifists who objected to Britain's having any armaments at all blamed British diplomacy and League diplomacy for not keeping Japan out of Manchuria. If the law-breaking nations are to be allowed a preponderance of power, the diplomacy of the law-abiding will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. Those who seek to weaken the defences of the Empire which is the mainstay of the League are striking at the League itself. As for the duty of this country, we can only repeat what we said in our previous article: "No pacifist State can honestly be a member of the League, since" it cannot discharge one of the fundamental obligations of membership. New Zealand owes it, not merely to herself and lo tire Empire, but to the League of Nations, that she shall be ready when the call comes."