Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 17084, 1 July 1919, Page 4

The world, as made known to us- day by day through our cable

messages, continues to furnish forth other causes of anxiety than those which arose from Germany and her attitude in relation to peace. Look which way we may, there is little or no difference in the character of the signs and portents that everywhere menace us. TIIO v» liolc cxoirtion groivns beneath the burden of its travail and echoes with hostile cries. In. a senso we are not definitely nearer peace to-day than wo were in November hist, when the signal to •“ Cease firing ” was heard along the European battle fronts. Then, even while men yot looked fearfully back into that "dark backward and abysm of time” from which they had that hour escaped, it was with something more than a mere hope that the worst had passed, and that from thonce on tho world’s pathway (slowly, perhaps, but still continuously) would be on an ascending scale. Nor are we of those who would affirm, that such hopes have been shown, to be without justification. Premature they may have been, but not entirely destitute of reality. To believe this would he to despair of the race, and to assert that the sacrifices that have been offered by the world’s youth and manhood have been in vain—an assertion that cannot be accepted either as a sufficient explanation or a rational interpretation of the political, social, and economic chaos that is everywhere beating in upon us Hastily judged, the world of to-day, for tho most part, appears , as an abnormal, not a- normal, world. It is not normal that men and women, races and creed's, individuals and communities, should the earth over bo flying at each other’s throat and seeking to extort—preferably, In many cases, by methods of violence—a greater share than they already possess of what are -regarded as tho material pleasures of life. That there must bo far-reaching changes sane people everywhere, whatever their nationality or dime, admit; that these can be more effectively secured by a reversion to a state of brutishness and savagery, to “ the cave of the savage and the lair of the brute,” no thoughtful person believes. And it is the universality of this negation among the average intelligence of mankind that constitutes our abiding hope and steadfast foundation in these days of dissolution and overthrow. That which has served its day, or too long held the stage to the detriment of the many, must disappear. Not, however, to be succeeded by what is even moro hateful'—“the rattling sabre ” of criminal autocracy and tho Bolshevik excesses of diseased fanaticism—but by the reasoned product of the combined wisdom and sobriety of the world’s statesmanship.

Why a League of Nations?

It is not surprising that tho question How much of this statesmanship is observable to-day? should, increasingly be asked, and in tones of growing -bittemees and mockery. Almost every dav’s summary of the world’s news provides ample reasons why this is bo. Neither Old nor New World is exempt.

Statesmanship —it by this we mean the conduct of human affair® in harmony with the. dictates of justice, righteousness, and common sen-ao—is hard to seek; its opposite—the insistence upon and gratification of and ivictual needs, no matter who else suffers in the process—is painfully obvious. Whilst the lew are anxiously seeking a .rational way out of the maelstrom of domestic hatreds into which we have fallen, the majority seemingly have no alternative to offer save that of brute force and a return to those methods of lieartbreaking violence and desolation from S which wo have but recently emerged. The question at this hour that still awaits solution is : Which of these is to win through? Is the world henceforth to bo one of peace, or a world whose continued existence is dependent upon the ability of each of its separate parts to maintain its right of existence by the power of tire sword against every other part? If so, then the world war, in which it has been the privilege of New Zealand to bear its share, wild have teen fought in vain. To avert so dire a disaster as tlua is tire task of present-day statesmanship. How are the fruits of the world’s many sacrifices to be conserved? Under what tic are men to bs brought in order - that a recurrence of the slaughter and destruction of the past years shall be not merely postponed but made impossible? Of such are the questions that await solution, and to which it is imperative that ail men and women should devote themselves. In these, too, we find the why and the wherefore of a League of Nations. Among •sections of writers and publicists it has not infrequently been the fashion to belittle the demand for a League of Nations; to denounce it as an invention of President Wilson or as a dream from the attempted realisation- of which the practical commoneons© of our people—whose own pre-war neglect, it may be remarked, so nearly ran. tire Empire to the brink of perdition —alone wifi save us. Yet it is. permissible to assert that if amid the -coniuaiona and -destructions that beset

tts there bft one thing tliat dWties dearly forth beyond ovary other a-s the god towards which mankind, must steer, it is that known as a League of. Nations. What eh nil constitute its final form and what the exact'nature of its several Mjgrcdionts w» do not know; nor at this moment docs it greatly matter. trim supremo fact ia that wo should unow and' recognise that in, through, and by way of a League of Notions is perm anoint world peace alone to bo - had. * i i t cannot bo said too often,” wrote the oditoi of the ‘British Woeldyi, J “that unless there is a League of Nations, ■with America in it, we have before us another and even more terrible war.” Nor need we go to America and to American' statesmen for illustrations in proof. The civilised world must in all seriousness draw itself together for continuous ranted effort along lines of mutual helpfulness. “All o® hopes* of saving the world from a repetition of the unfathomable cataclysm of 1914,” wrote the British Prime Minister a few weeks since, "centre upon our working out tho practical means whereby the nations of tho earth can conduct the common affairs of the world in friendly cooperation instead of jealous rivalry. ” “ The alternative to a. League of Nations, ’ said Mr Philip Gibbs at the close of hie American tour, “ democratic in it® foundations and powerful by the understanding and faith of peoples, is Bolshevism. . . . If tho League of Nations foils—then the world will, in my babel, crash into gulfs of widespread anarchy/’