The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, March 1, 1945. SAN FRANCISCO AND AFTER.

Grey River Argus, 1 March 1945, Page 4

The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, March 1, 1 945 . SAN FRANCISCO AND AFTER.

.Although it began merely with the decimation of Poland, and later was for a time ‘called “phoney,” nobody to-day imagines that this has been a war in the old style between certain European Powers for national interests. Mr Churchill’s latest pronouncement recalls the fact that the prime issue has been all along that of checking the greatest military machine; for he lays most emphasis on the decision of the three Great Powers in future to rely on the use of force to prevent such a machine again becoming a reality. At San Francisco in a few weeks, the projected organisation of security will he given shape, but not a shape which might possibly interfere with the unity of the “ Big Three,'’ or deter any of them from combining with the others at short notice in the use of physical force against any other country suspected of planning aggression. Though they are not united in a dictatorship over the world, the Big Three, according to Mr Churchill are designated as the executive power of the proposed security organisation. Thus democracy, as exemplified in the Wilsonian conception oi. a league of nations to preserve peace, has in the war undergone a marked modification. In other words something of the democratic tradition has died since last century. Many still might hold that democracy simply means self-govern-ment. Others assume that it means the particular form of selfgovernment which is based on the ideal of personal liberty, and freedom of conscience, embodied m parliamentary or representative institutions. The latter idea derived its force from belief ill the absolute and unique value of the human soul, transcending the power and glory of the world. It is the latter conception which has been proclaimed as the object for which the British, American and other peoples have been fighting, it is indeed a fact that such a state of organised violence as warfare ignores, in practice, the ideal of personal liberty under the rule of law and of government by discussion. This discipline, however, is not itself destructive of democracy, so long as the notion of progress is not allowed to destroy the freedom of conscience and the rights of personality. Rather has the menace to such liberty arisen from a now power, hostile alike to humanitarian ideals of the apostles of progress and to the tradition of personal freedom; or, in other words, a power that has stood for a revolution of destruction. Insofar as that new power has been exemplified by German aggression, it is in process of being overcome. Its source was not really Hitler and his colleagues, although it teas their inspiration. Nineteenth century thought was not only canalised in the idea of progress, but also in the idea of material force —the survival of the fittest. Those principles became illiberal, ami even repressive, in the case of the Germans they were carried more than ever to an extreme. Instead of armed strife, therefore, the security of humanity in the future dictates a return to unity on principles of human liberty and the natural law. Air Churchill, wdiile warning tha! (hey will be deprived of every means of resuming militaristic policy, tells the Germans that some day they may expect to reenter the comity of. nations. It stands to reason that the heirs of the old tradition of European freedom have to-day a mission. A hew order, if it is to be a better order, depends ultimately on the nucleus of believers in the fundamental unity of humanity. All peoples are called to this unity. Whilst each society strives to achieve its purpose entirely by political power and material force, disregarding the life of the whole, or the rights of others, it is a hard row which the advocates of unity have to hoe. The more altruistic their endeavours, the greater the opposition. The reconciliation of the nations is thus no merely economic or political campaign. Just as there is the manifestation of a spirit of hatred, so must there be manifested a spirit of unity and indeed of charity. Provision to thwart aggression may remain still essential, but, of itself, it will scarcely banish the spirit of aggression, if actually it does not even provoke it. where, it may be lurking still. The Avar has indeed brought into unity a very great, part o f the human race, so much so that neutrality has been scarcely a reality. What has been possible for the sake of common protection in the lace of a particular example of rapacity, ought not be impossible of extension for the sake of eliminating the spirit of ago-rossion.