“PITILESS AND HORRIBLE.”

Evening Star, Issue 21721, 16 May 1934, Page 8

“PITILESS AND HORRIBLE.”

“ Singularly pitiless and horrible ” is how the League of Nations Commission describes the war between Paraguay and Bolivia, which (it has been unable to stop. The commission, consisting of a Spaniard (as chairman), a Frenchman, Englishman, Italian, and Mexican, went to La Paz, the capital of Bolivia, and also to Montevideo, to talk sense to the belligerents. A PanAmerican Conference whi9h was sitting in Montevideo passed a resolution declaring that “ the question of honour is not now involved as to, either nation, but that both parties can cease fighting with entire credit to themselves,” and did its best to help. But the Paraguayans were winning and strongheaded; the Bolivians wished to avenge defeats; there were the usual complaints that a truce had been violated; and the commission could do no more than return home—or to its widely separated homes—leaving one of its members to resume negotiations and to call it together again if a more favourable opportunity should offer. 4 The Times ’ describes the commission’s report as “ an object lesson of the horror, hatred, misdirection of human energies, destruction of wealth, and waste of human life which follow the refusal of rival States to come to any sensible agreement between themselves or to accept the arbitral proposals of the League.” It goes on to say that “it seems as if nothing would bring ‘the war to an end except complete exhaustion of the combatants grimly struggling in a region which is infected by disease, where the wounded cannot be properly attended to, and to which the young men of either country are being drawn as into a vortex of destruction.” Tho Paraguayans fought a previous war until they were almost exterminated. The Bolivians will have more incentive to continue this one as it comes nearer their base.

The war is being waged with all the most modern weapons. External armament firms, as well as the belligerent Governments, have seen to that. The League’s Commission reproaches United States industries in particular with supplying these' means to keep up the struggle. It is not often that an accusation is made by an. international commission against an outside country with so much directness. ‘ The Times ’ emphasises the reproach when it says that “there is nothing to be said for the foreign arms manufacturers, who know that their profits can only come from continuation of the mutual slaughter.” Pertinent to this aspect was a statement made by General Sir Herbert Lawrence, chairman of directors of Vickers Limited, a few weeks ago, concerning the activities of his firm and other British armament firms. So long as its products were necessary for the defence of the Empire he claimed that his firm, in manufacturing armaments, was rendering a national service, and, as its trading results showed, without any large reward to its shareholders. Its activities were just as much part of the defence system of the country as the forts defending the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour. In Britain—and in Britain alone—the export of armaments was forbidden except with the approval of the Government, and sanctions were not granted to the company if it was considered detrimental to the national interests for such orders to be executed by it. The British Government's control over the export of arms was effective. The companies in the Vickers group were not members of any international armament ring, they took no part in politics either at home or abroad, and neither directly nor indirectly had they any control over or influence with any British or foreign newspapers.

All that is satisfactory so far as it goes. It would not, in ordinary circumstances, prevent the supply of arms to any country, not likely to be an enemy of the supplying Power, which —to quote General Lawrence—“ is strengthening its defences and has not itself the necessary manufacturing resources available.’’ But in the case of

Paraguay and Bolivia, which are actually at war, the British Government has gone further in proposing a year ago that there should bo an international agreement to put an embargo on arms supplies. That proposal will be pressed again through the League’s channels, and the United States Government, whose delegates talked peace with the best at the Pan-American Conference, should be first in accepting it and in applying the suggested veto to its manufacturers. But the whole system which requires that private armament firms, selling their productions where they can, should be “ part of the defence system ” of enlightened countries has its own claim to be called “ pitiless and horrible.” So have the national relations which bear fruit in reports and rumours of which a depressing budget was published by us yesterday—preparations in Germany for aerial attacks, plans in Prance to supply “ gas masks for every house,” naval defence plans of Italy, and military defence wrangles of Belgium. In his thoughtful address read at the graduation ceremony yesterday Professor Hunter contrasted the amazing success that man has achieved in the physical domain and his deplorable failure in that of social organisation. It was urged by him that the university should give more attention to social studies. The university can do its part, but the principles that are needed to avoid such tragical contradictions and terrors as the world finds itself suffering from' to-day are all taught in Sunday school. The principles of international health are admitted. The League of Nations exists to give effect to them. The Great War has shown what can happen when they are ignored. But the gulf remains between knowledge and practice. It was a character of George Meredith’s who described woman as the last thing likely to be civilised by man. But when is man himself going to be civilised ?