CAUSES OF WAR

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 November 1934, Page 10

CAUSES OF WAR

PRESSURE OF POPULATION. The pressure of population—how can its difficulties be met? J’o-day one of the subjects which agitate the minds of’ all is tho constant reference to war alid its possibilities. On one side we have those whose business is the fomenting and carrying on of war —these naturally endeavour to create a public opinion in their favour. On the we have those who are definitely against war for any consideration, knowing from recent experience that it is absolutely futile and only brings in its train trade dislocation, unemployment, and over•burdening debt (writes Linda P. Littlejohn, in the “Sydney Morning Herald”). But since this question, whatever our personal viewpoint, is paramount in the minds of many, it might be helpful to consider, what could, today, be an underlying cause of war (putting aside for a moment the power and influence of armament firms) and whether there is any real fear of such a happening, what this tear may be and how it can be met. In the past wars have been waged for religious beliefs for the personal ambitions of a sovereign, for territorial gain, and more recently for a home for a surplus population, And while recognising all these causes we must not, however, forget that economic factors in the broad sense have generally been pre-eminent in causing war. This is not t,o imply, however, that they have been the ostensible cause; often, economic motives seem less worthy* than others, and are, therefore, hidden from sight as •much 'as possible.

To-day we recognise that the ago is past for religious strife, by arms—- ' though we seem to get more than our share of verbal religious ' war—the voice of a sovereign is dumb on these matters, and there is, too, practically no part of the world that has not been pegged out by some nation, so there | remains only the cause of space for expansion of population. We used to hear that wars were waged to find markets, but we have learnt the error of that outlook, since the last war | has shown that the result has been to close markets rather than to open them. Now. is there a real clanger in this demand for “space for a surplus population?” Are there countries which must seek room for nationals so that they may find sufficient means of subsistence ? Probably the two countries which are most overcrowded are Japan and Great Britain. Warren Thompson, in his standard work, remarks that Great Britain has the most difficult population problem of all the over-populated parts of the world. It behoves us, therefore, to glance at these countries.

We cannot discuss any problem today without taking into consideration the fact that we live in a machine age,'and that as soon as any people come within the scope of our modern industrial civilisation, its need for eepncmic resources begins to expand with incredible rapidity, for not only are there created ever new wants, but i the rate of the population grows by leaps and bounds, due, amongst other things, to modern sanitation and hygiene,' Before the 19th century the growth of population was slow, indeed it was practically stationary in most countries, so there was little

urge to acquire new lands as Compared with that which has since arisen. The first countries to annex territory to their hearts content were England, Holland, France, Spain, and Portugal, and they were founding mighty empire before Italy, Japan, and Germany were in a position to take any interest in the matter at all. The short length of this article does not permit of a follow-up of the story of land acquisition and distribution down the later ages, but it is clear that a country completely cornered, such as Japan is to-day, would then have sought a remedy in war. We must remember this when we criticise Japan’s resentment at our dog-in-the-manger policy, U.S.A.’s immigration policy, the growing economic nationality of the dominant Powers, the unequal distribution of the world’s natural resources, and, above all, at the self-satisfied way in which the Western nations, having won half the world by means of war, suddenly discover that war is not a legitimate means of national policy, but without showing the slightest inclination to disgorge the spoils that they won by this means in the past. What are we going to do about it, for war is certainly to-day not a legitimate instrument of national policy? Are we going to face the question or adopt the old expedient ol laissez-faire?

.NO UNLIMITED TIME. We cannot expect an over-crowded country to respect an argument such as we in Australia put forth—that we will populate our own country—in time. It is the immediate future that matters. Can we imagine if we are told that “effective occupation” is the only title that satisfies a modern sense of justice? One realises a nation’s contention, that it has a right to determine its own racial composition, yet on the other hand, a surplus population must go somewhere or starve.

There has been a never-ceasing process of the over-full country pouring its surplus into a relatively empty one, and the matter eventually resolving itself into a contest of strength between the overflowing stream and the opposing barrier. Where, racial discrimination is a determining factor in immigration policy as in the United States and Australia, the case is a great deal Worse, and exclusion is resented pot only as an economic injury but as a- national insult. We shall be unable to perpetuate conditions which a large mass of mankind believe to be unjust, we must prepare ourselves, therefore to prove that because of effective occupation we are entitled to. hold Australia for the British race.

But what of Great Britain’s ability to send us suitable immigrants? Before we consider whether Great Britain can provide us with effective occupants let us ask ourselves whether we sincerely desire a great influx of British folk? Seriously and regretfully, I do not think that we do We permit the few -settlers who have come here to be dubbed “pommies,” we permit our sport to cause dissensions between kinsmen and we raise our voices in no uncertain way when it is suggested that British money arid labour should develop our northern areas. Now the other side. Do the British, want to come here? For a holiday, yes; but to stay here and make a. permanent home—l do not think so. The British race, in the 19th century, so ready to set out in

great numbers, settle and stay has lost its capacity to “found’’ new homes. Our race must. rediscover this instinct, and we, too, must be broader minded and more “relationlike”; otherwise we may have to answer elsewhere to a charge of holding a country which we cannot use when others require it very urgently. The problems of this age are extraordinarily difficult. They will never be settled by war, they will only be accentuated. We must be prepared to get our heads out of the sand, to sweep the cobwebs out of our brains, and to put on long-distance glasses, and to meet at round-table conferences, however unpleasant it may be to our pride. We must not put our trust always in politicians. They are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and the moment is often all that concerns them. Rather let us seek for thoughtful able citizens of both sexes, who can put world justice before personal gain, and who can try at any rate to treat the troubles of others, not as sins, but as difficulties which it concerns iis all to solve. We are given brains to use and we should remember that as Doan Inge has said: “It is amazing to think that man, armed with his five .senses, so easily deceived, directed by his reason, evolved not. for any such purpose, but simply to get food and escape his enemies, has set out with this pathetic little apparatus to plumb the secrets of the universe.”

These words give a dignity to a human being—let us be worthy of them.