COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 111, 6 November 1935, Page 29

COLLECTIVE SECURITY

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

An interesting document recently received by the New Zealand Institute of Pacific Relations is the final report of the International Studies Conference on "Collective Security," held in London last June. The conference was attended on behalf of the New Zealand Institute of Pacific Relations by Dr. G. H. Scholefield and Dr. R. M. Campbell. In the course of a short report made to the National Council of the New Zealand Institute, Dr. Scholefield makes the following observations:—

"The conference struck both of us, I.think, as being of very great importance. There were sevei.ty-four delegates, including many leading jurists, publicisits, and professors from most European countries and North America, and particularly strong delegations from France, Spain, and Great Britain. Germany was represented only by Dr. Fritz Berber, who was present by invitation. The Russian Ambassador, M. Maisky, was also present throughout.

"The preparatory papers and the precis of debates will indicate that the main work of the conference was directed toward the machinery of collective security, the definition of the aggressor, the rights of neutrals, and so forth. These aspects of the problem have been studied with remarkable thoroughness and with a tojerance which was hardly to be expected considering that some countries admittedly hold territory and other resources to the detriment and loss of others, thus perpetuating an inequality which necessarily engenders discontent. The discussion in face of this admitted fact was for the most part laudably scientific and detached.

"What I feit personally was that we were perhaps giving too much study to the creation of machinery for the prevention of war and too little to making sure that the foundations on which it must be based are safe and strong. Those foundations are really the acceptance of the proposed machinery willingly and freely by nations which have confidence in its efficacy for the purpose for which it is set up. It was emphasised again and again that war does not produce just settlements, and that the Great War was certainly no better than others in this respect; in that it has left certain powerful nations with grievances which are frankly recognised even in countries which have profit ad by their spoliation.

"In my opinion it is hopeless to set up any machinery based on the acceptance and perpetuation of these injustices, leaving it to the slow process of time either to rectify them or

to reconcile the aggrieved. Professor Zimmern and others were inclined to say that Germany, for example, had her remedy in the, treaty., All she had to do was 'to come into conference.' To me that seems a childish thing to say. Small countries which haver profited by the despoiling of Germany have declared emphatically that they will not hear of revision. To what tribunal can a self-respecting Germany go?

"Certain French delegates did actually approacli this question. Professor Sassin said that 'a sort of necessary altruism was called for in the interests of the nations.' Professor de la Pradelle (who was called away to preside over the Italy-Abyssinia arbitration) said "The respect for obligations supposes in principle a consent freely given; otherwise the pretended argeement of the parties rests in reality oirforce and not on voluntary consent.' He said that while modification might not be immediately necessary, it would demand inquiry some day. One of the outstanding figures of the conference, the Spanish Professor Gascon y Marin, declared his belief that revisions could be ' effected without war. Canada said that without real revision there would be no popular support in North America for sanctions.

"I am glad to-say that this very important aspect of the problem is to be the subject of study for the next conference, namely, peaceable change. This seems to me to be the crucial question. Certain adjustments of territory, economic resources or sovereignty must be effected before any system of collective security—which involves the maintenance of the status quo—can be offered for acceptance with any hope whatever. To propose perpetuating present holdings as the foundation of a new international order would be absurd. It would simply be. a challenge to the nations which are now discontented." ,

Owning five motor-cars, Pope Plus XI is an enthusiastic motorist, and likes to be driven at a speed of about' 40 miles an hour.