Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, SEPT, 30, 1936. MORALS OR MARKETS?

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 259, 30 September 1936, Page 8

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, SEPT, 30, 1936. MORALS OR MARKETS?

■Nations at the present time are crying- out loudly for markets, at the same time protesting- against the economic restrictions with which they are faced and which prevent a world-wide distribution of their manufactured goods. And while they declaim loudly against what they term the injustice meted out to them by their competitors it would be in the interests of world peace if some of the nations would consider their own shortcomings as disclosed by their lack of political morality and common honesty in the administrative acts of their governments. It would not be stretching one’s imagination to say that to-day some governments are absolutely corrupt and that they would have no hesitation .in drawing the sword against weaker countries were it not for the fear that their aggression would in turn draw otlier nations into tlie strife and result in their own undoing. Jealous rivalry breeds hatred and bitterness which in turn creates a welter of turmoil and confusion. These conditions since the World War have enabled dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to climb into office, and in the thirst for greater power they have not hesitated to spill the blood of their own nationals. Mussolini’s war against Abyssinia and the murder of these poor defenceless people was a fair example of what can be expected from dictators of his type, but the expedition could have beeu crushed at the outset and Abyssinia saved for the Abyssinians had there been one other leading Power ready to support the policy adopted by Britain at the League of Nations. The Power that was able to fill this role was France, and her failure to support _ Britain at the critical moment in defence of unarmed people will stand for ever as a discreditable action by a nation that was herself saved from destruction through the support which Britain gave her during the years 1914-18.

How different is Britain’s policy as disclosed by Mr Anthony Eden last week at the Assembly of the League of Nations. In enunciating the fact that Britain had no desire to see the nations divided into two camps, in which forms of government were challenging each other nationally with controlled propaganda and controlled criticism to stifle thought, he went on to say that “we should not allow anyone to wrest our democracy from us; there must be toleration and international order. The two essential elements are the League machinery and the will to work it. . . - Regional pacts could be devised to strengthen the Covenant and Britain had resolved to negotiate

such a pact in Western Europe.” Britain can be a great force in securing world peace, but her influence has been sadly weakened since the War by the disarmament ideals of Mr Ramsay MacDonald when Prime Minister, supported by the late Mr Arthur Henderson and other prominent members of the Labour Party. As a result of the effort to carry out their ideals during a long series of years Britain became practically a defenceless nation with a consequent weakening of her status among Western nations. Public opinion, fortunately, has undergone a complete change in British countries, and we are now told by Mr Eden that “Britain will persist in her rearmament until the nations have reached a limitation agreement. Not only weapons, but the war mentality must be laid aside.” He was obviously referring to the recent outburst by a German leader against Russia at Nuremberg when he declared that a nation did not increase respect for its own form of government by pouring scorn on those of other countries and that the first rule of ordered life between nations was faith in one’s own national tenets and tolerance between those of others. Russia’s reply to the German statement was vitriolic and in shockingly bad taste, and was very good evidence of the hatred which exists between these two nations.

Russia, Germany and Italy’s armies are a menace to the peace of the world and to the very existence of civilisation. Their nationals are kept in unfair subjection, and freedom of thought, speech and action are sternly discountenanced. The respective peoples are scared into a submission that is artificial and insincere and discontent is rife in all these countries.

In this welter of injustice and insecurity the British Empire stands out clear and distinct. Its component parts have had an example of sane, sober national administration in the United Kingdom, hence the powerful influence exercised over the Dominions with an extension in the near future, it is hoped, over the whole world. The morals of the nations must hark back and follow in the footprints of their forefathers. They must return to Christian faith which in turn will bring a change of morals so sadly needed by nations.