The Hawera Star SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1935. LEAGUE REFORM.

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 15 June 1935, Page 4

The Hawera Star

SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1935. LEAGUE REFORM.

Delivered every evening by 5 o clock in Hawera, Manaia. Kaupokonui, Otakeno, Oeo. Pihatna. Opunake. Eltharn, Ngaere, Mangatoki. r Ksponga, Awatuna. Te Kiri. Mahoe. Ijowgarth. Manuiabi. Kakara mea. Alton. Hurleyville. Fatea, Wbenna kura. Waverley, Mokoia, Whakam&ra Obangai. Meremere. Fraser Soad and Ararat*

Reform of the League of Nations is becoming- a constant subject of debate in international circles. Hitherto, many friends of the League have opposed changes, not on the ground that the League as originally conceived was perfect, but that to meddle with it now might result in its disintegration. The League can apply moral pressure, but cannot employ material force, which does not belong to the League, but to the Powers which compose the League. Unless they arc in accord and willing to act, tl\e League is without weapons. Nor would it necessarily be a good thing for the League to find its principal members in agreement on the application of force to another nation which happens to be—as every nation in turn has happened to be since the war—particularly unpopular. If this were to occur, the League might appear to become an “anti” organisation, and a rival organisation would sooner or later, in the nature of things, be formed. As it is, the Great Powers, who would have the responsibility of wielding the weapon of sanctions, are obviously" indisposed to take such a responsibility, though it is proposed to “revive” Article 16. It has seemed to many people better to drop a pretence, whose hollowness has been shown in Europe, Asia and South America. The League would not, by eliminating certain articles, abandon its general unlimited right to take whatever decisions it pleased in each instance. Behind this dispute about words there is, of course, the clash, not always realised, of two systems of thought. One conception, however imperfectly practiced, is that of universal intervention in every quarrel. It is sometimes called sanctions, sometimes collective security. The other conception is that of universal abstention. It would interpret neutrality not as an impartial furnishing of goods and munitions to both sides, but as the withholding of goods and munitions and credits from the belligerents as such. If this difference in pacific opinion, which is perhaps vital, is to be threshed out,

it should be threshed out with the help of the United States. At present there is strong- opposition to the suggestion that the United States should reconsider its decision in regard to the League, an opposition which was doubtless reinforced by the failure to join the World Court. But if there is to be a committee to examine the future of the League as is now advocated, it would be a moral duty of all countries to contribute their thought to the reorganisation of the League, and to the clarification of the policy of peaceloving nations toward belligerent nations.