PERMANENT PEACE

Evening Star, Issue 23100, 28 October 1938, Page 9

PERMANENT PEACE

LONGING OF THE WORLD PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S VIEWS AMERICA'S FAITH IN DEMOCRACY Preii Aaodstlon—By Telejrspb—Oopyrlgtu WASHINGTON. October 26. President Roosevelt, in a radio ad- “ None who lived through the grave hours of last month can doubt the longing of most of the peoples of the world for enduring peace. Our business now is to utilise the desire for peace and to build on principles which are the only basis of permanent peace. There can be no peace if the reign of law is to be replaced! by the recurrent sanctification of sheer force. There can be no peace if national policy adopts as a deliberate instrument the threat of war or the dispersipn over the world of millions of helpless, persecuted wanderers without a place to lay their heads. There can be no peace if humble men and women free to think their own thoughts, express their own feelings, and worship Gckj, or if economic resources that ought to be, devoted to social and economic reconstruction are diverted towards intensified competition in armaments. “ At no time in modern history has the responsibility which rests upon Governments been more obvious or more profound. I speak for the United States, which has no interest in war. We covet nothing save good relations with our neighbours, and we recognise that the world to-day has become our neighbour. But in the principle of this policy there must be a deliberate, conscious will that such political changes as changing needs require shall be made peacefully. “ You cannot organise civilisation around a core of militarism and at the same time expect reason to control human destinies. The United States, for more than 12 years, has been steadily seeking disarmament, yet we have consistently' pointed) out that neither we nor any other nation will accept disarmament while neighbour nations arm to the teeth. If there is no disarmament we ourselves must continue to arm, for we must be prepared. We still insist that the armament race among nations is absurd unless new territories or new controls are coveted.

“We in the United States do not seek to impose on any other people either our way of life or our internal form of Government, but we are determined to maintain and protect that- way of life andl that form of Government for ourselves. We affirm our faith that whatever choice of way of life a people makes that choice must not threaten the world with the disaster of war, which releases a floodtide of evil emotions. In all that I have said to you I have reaffirmed the faith of the American people in democracy.” ’^president : Roosevelt concluded with an appeal for greater unity among the nations, for peace andl restraint, and for negotiation*and community effort. By working for the same ideals within their own borders the people of the United States would have that unity of will with which alone democracy could successfully meet its enemies. WARNING TO DICTATORGHIP NATIONS OBVIOUSLY AIMED AT ITALY AND GERMANY. WASHINGTON, October 27. The Washington correspondent of the United Press states that the President’s sharp phrases were aimed obviously at Italy and Germany, and were practically certain to draw harsh criticism from the totalitarian Press, if not from official quarters. Interestingly enough, the President’s observations drew criticism almost immediately from an important domestic source, notably Mr Hoover, who insisted that the methods and manners of dictatorships were no concern of America. He warned that if the United States went to war it would be necessary to mobilise the nation “ into practically a Fascist Government.” He insisted that democracies must reconcile themselves to the fact that despotisms have always existed and will continue to exist. Mr Hoover minimised the danger of totalitarian aggression against the western hemisphere and demanded that before military expenditures are expanded “we should be told frankly what dangers have so increased as to warrant it.” President Roosevelt’s speech is widely interpreted as America’s definite foreign policy. It contained striking similarities through phraseology to Lord Halifax’s address, and is considered a refinement and qualification of his notable “ quarantine ” pronouncement two years ago. The President at one stage not only condemned the use of threat of force, repression, and propagandising as instruments of national policy, but showed plain’ resentment of the' derisory observations frequently made by these dictatorships concerning democracy. He stressed the intention of the United States to stop by force if necessary the introduction of these methods and manners, either by propaganda or otherwise, into the western hemisphere. It is felt that the President restated the quarantine principle, this time, however, stressing the United States intention to act alone and exclusively in the wesern hemisphere. Reports from London that whether

or not the similarities between the speeches of Lord Halifax and President Roosevelt were intentional, the President’s stand was certain to receive unqualified support from British Gevernment circles, were received with satisfaction in Washington. SPEECH BANNED IN GERMANY LONDON, October 27. (Received October 28, at 11.45 a.m.) The British United Press correspondent at Berlin says the Press has been instructed not to publish President Roosevelt’s speech. RECEPTION IN ITALY ROME, October 27. (Received October 28, at 11.45 a.m.) An abbreviated account of President Roosevelt’s speech is published. Those well-informed state that the Government is sympathetic regarding the suggestion for a disarmament conference, but object to his blaming the totalitarian Powers for the rearmament fever;