WORLD OUTLOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 19 February 1935, Page 6

WORLD OUTLOOK

’EFFORTS TO .MAINTAIN PEACE

iH’ON o s . AY. FORBES STATEMENT

(Per favour of Government)

WELLINGTON, Fobm.ry. 19

Speaking in the 'House this afternoon, the prime Minister (the Hon G. V\ . Forbes) said ;

The position of th© world, at the in 'inent is one of extreme difficulty and perplexity both economically and politically, and it is in the highest, degree desirable that this House and the people of the Dominion should be as well informed as possible on into l nati<>n-*l movements as they occur. It would be absurd to suggest that this small and remote Dominion plays any decisive part in world [politics b l| t the times call for the efforts .of all wdll disposed peopes, and perhaps, the weight even ol New Zealand might conceivably turn ,tn evenly balanced scale.

\\\. are facing at Urn moment a most interesting and important development in tlu* association ©f European Nations, a movement which may well lead to a material improvement in international security and correspondingly it. nvay be hoped, to a substantio! reduction in the armaments of the world. Members will remember that, by the Covenant of the League of Nations, each member of the League undertook, inter (alia, to respect amt preserve the territorial integrity of every other member and that when the Covenant was framed there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether this collective guarantee of each individual (State was, if necessary, to be supported ill the last resort by force. In many cases it has been found possible to obtain agreement at Geneva (sometimes, perhaps, at the expense of the principles originally laid down) b»t. tiio absence of Germany, Russia and tile United States from the League was for <a lengthy period a g r o : 't weakness. Certain European Nations who have felt themselves particularly open to attack, have not been satisfied that their safety was sufficiently safeguarded by the conciliation machinery set up at Geneva 'and felt that something more definite was necessary if their people were to be secure. These doubts led to the famous Geneva Protocol of 1924, an attempt to provide “teeth ’ for the Covenant and to ensure that Cov-eufuit-brOakiiig nations vfrmld be restrained by force. Groat Britain among other Powers declined to accept this t protocol on the gounrd that it anvouned to a blank cheque that could involve GreSat, Britain in every war that might break out in any part of the world. The next step, in 1925, was a more limited one.

signature of the. Treaty,- of ELo- ‘ eai'no led to a, general improvement in the European situation and for a time it appeared probable that the League machinery would be found adequate to meet any eventuality that might arise. Despite numerous resolutions and treaties renouncing war it was felt in some quarters that the League’s machinery, excellent as it was and successful as' it had been in very many cases, might not meet the tost of a [dispute in which one. or move of the j parties was a major Power. | Perhaps the first really serious test arose in connection with the dispute between Japan and China with reference to Manchuria. The League’s machinery undoubtedly failed on that occasion to prevent wliat practically every member of the Longue regarded as a breach of the principles of Geneva. A furthei tost of the League's machinery took place in connection with the war between Paraguay and Bolivia, which unfortunately is still continuing and which the best efforts of the League of Nations and of the American Powers hi ;l ve for a lengthy period been unable to suppress. The recent notices of the l intention of Japan and Germain’ to ! withdraw from the League of Nations j (though to some extent compensated fur by th? entry of Mexico. Russia and Turkey and the increasing co-operation (shown by the United States of AnierJ jea) have nevertheless creat'd a breach in the League’s universality which, oi course, vitally affects the application of the League machinery. With Germany’s announcement of withdrawal from the League, while at

„. e tin me time vigorously pressing a campaign of national preparation, it is not surprising that neighbouring countries have taken alarm and hate seriously doubted whether they can depend for their security solely upon l'i,. machinery provided at Geneva. Too often the only alternative has appeared to lie rearmament and preparation for war. It is perhaps not too much to say that until last weak practically every Power in the world lias 'been thinking along those linos. Instead of disarming, therefore, the world is either rearming or busily preparing to do so. As a European statesman ha s put it, mankind is preparing to commit suicide.

Let me at this stage pause to remark that it is not sufficient to pass rcsolutons favour of disarmament, as is so widely done throughout the world; it is not sufficient that all people, generally speaking, urgently desire peace and disarmament; it is not sufficient to have machinery set up to deal with international disputes; none of these things is sufficient unless and until each nation can and does

feel that the security of its people is fully safeguarded without nr me. We may all agree with complete unanimity that war is an anachronism and a nightmare that should he removed from the world, and undoubtedly it helps to have tin’s sentiment repeatedly brought before all governments and peoples, hut it is not enough, -o long as any doubt exists as to whether the peace structure will stand any strain that may be placed upon it by a wttf*

iike Power, and so long as .any doubt exists that all countries can be relied upon to abide, by the collective system Unit they have deliberately bound themselves to accept. At the present time no prudent government, responsible lor the lives and wellbeing of millions of people, could possibly fool that their security is fully safeguarded without arm aments. The French people 'have" perhaps been more doubtful than any others of the efficacy of the Genova arrangements to preserve the peace of the world, and for two decades successive French Governments have been pressing for some more definite and tangible guarantee of the severity of their people. Briefly, these proposals are: an attempt to lessen the tension in Western Europe in the first place by what is known as a ’“Regional Pact, the restriction on German armaments, and Germany’s membership of the League of Nations. >

The rapid developments in aerial navigation have materially altered previously existing theories of war. Aeroplanes, capable of dropping explosives and other noxious substances, can he produced with great rapidity and are exceedingly mobile. London is particularly vulnerable to snob attacks and the insular position of Great Britain which has been such an important bulwark of defence for centuries lias lost much of its importance

■ Tt seems to be generally accepted that the outbreak of any vVar in the future will be characterised by immediate aerial attacks, the effects of which cannot possibly be restricted merely to combatant forces, and that {[hose attaseks will do ’widespread damage to life and property both civilian and military. It is, .1 think, generally agreed that it will fie impossible to prevent such attacks without overwhelmingly superior forces, and that the most likely thing to deter a Power which intended to wage war in this manner would he the sure and certain knowledge that if it did so a still heavier attack could rapidly be made on its own territory.

The proposal now made by France is that all the Locarno Powers, namely, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and Great Britain, should, with the object of deterring an aggressor, join in an undertaking immediately to give the assistance of their air force to which ever of them might be the victm of unprovoked aerial aggression by one of the contracting parties.

The proposal is not made as an arrangement between France and Great Britain, it is a proposal made by France, supported by Great Britain, for the considerJ'ion of these five Powers, with Germany, of course, taking an equal share in the consideration of the proposals, and it is a vital condition of the whole arrangement thdt Germany, if she accepts it, should return to her place in tlie T.feague of Nations.

There arc many of this proposal which call for most earnest and careful consideration. Firstly, in' the arrangement itself V.here is some lack of complete definition of the circumstances which would call the proposed guarantee into play. A phrase used in the proposal «o far as it has gone is “unprovoked aergression.” What constitutes “aggression” has been Ibe subject of lengthy consideration at Geneva and elsewhere and, though the one definition lias been accepted by a number of States it is bv no means universally accepted —indeed Great Britain herself has not as vet adhered to this definition.

Again; it is not aggression alone that is to bring the guarantee into play, it is “unprovoked” aggression, and here again there is room for differences of opinion, honest or otherwise, as to what is or is not “provocation.”

Turning now to .another aspect, numerous solemn undertakings by the nations of the world to preserve the peace have not sufficed to .doubts and apprehensions, which mean s of course that there is no complete confidence that all nations will honour thei r obligations. Another important point to consider is that unless the mere existence of these guarantees is sufficient to prevent the unprovoked aggression which it is intended to prevent, then the inevitable consequence of any application of such guarantees as Locarno and the present propsals. is WAR. That is the problem, and on the one side you will find numbers who regard as an absurdity any suggestion that one way to prevent war is to go to war, and on the other a group of people who holcl the view that until the efforts ot mankind to prevent war can he supported if necessary by the application of ioree they can never he effective.

Another aspect is that a party to this proposal, to the extent that it honours .its obligations—and (^e, a t Britain would, of course, honour hers —accepts the obligation in ease of unprovoked aggression to plunge its people into war. Once a Power party to the arrangement is satisfied that the "unprovoked aggression” lias taken place (and the decision will of course rest, with each individual party) the action should be automatic and such a guaranteeing Power may find itsell lorcetl into war by the action of other Powers in a quarrel for which it is not responsible and over which it lias no control.

My final comment is addressed directly to the people of this country. The British Dominions are not parties to this proposed pact, just as they were nofc parties to tho Treaty of Locarno, hut if the arrangement comes into force, and if ever the nations that are parties to the arrangement are required to apply the proposed guarantees, then there must he no blinking the fact that if Great Britain became involved in war New Zealand would also be involved, This is so, not only because of

the legal position as wo accept it in New Zealand, but because the sentiment of this country would inevitably insist on New Zealand standing shoulder to shoulder with Great Britain in such circumstances.

I do not wish to discuss these questions at any greater length. The Government have been, of course, fully informed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and we must necessarily observe the confidential nature of many of the •communications received, but I do wish our people to know of the numerous and difficult questions involved in the present situation. Whatever one’s point of view 1 am confident that all will share the opinion that the Old Country has once again taken a hold and courageous step and has again shown her willingness to face a risk in the interests of world peace and the security of mankind.