LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 231, 30 August 1937, Page 9

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

INSTRUMENT OF PEACE. MR ARTHUR HENDERSON’S VIEW. “We liave got to face the question of the future. Are we going to say the League lias failed, that it was

the conception of a very wonderful ideal but that it is not practical politics, or are we going to say that it is practical politics if we had Governments at Geneva prepared to operate

it? In so far as we are able to educate the people’s opinions we are bringing about conditions mobilising pressure to be brought to bear on forty-one countries. Are we going to wait till 'ltaly, Germany, and Japan come in ; are we going to wait till there is universality? If we are going to say ‘Yes’ it is a pity we did not say that 10 or 15 years ago—we have never had univer-

sality. I suggest that it would be in our own interests for New Zealand, the British Empire, the Scandinavian countries, France, Russia, China, and all other countries if wo were prepared

to face up to all the possible risks involved in the system known as the League of Nations to build it up without the help of these other countries.” With this declaration Mr Arthur Henderson, 8.A., LLB., M.P. in the British Parliament for Kingswinford, concluded an analytical address before a large audience in the Empire Hall, yesterday afternoon, at a meeting held under the auspices of the League of Nations Union. Mr Henderson, who is the son of the late Mr Arthur Henderson, one of the staunchest of the

League’s proponents, dealt succinctly with the present European situation and the relation of the League to the various problems presented, stressing particularly that the League is not a separate entity, but an instrument for the securing and maintenance of peaceful relations. “It is in our own self-interest to organise even a ‘system-partial’ to resist aggression in this and other parts of the world,” Mr Henderson stated. “At the same time we must say to others, ‘We have established at Geneva Tnachinory to deal with boundary and other disputes and will give considera-

tion to all your claims, but what we will not agree to is change by force.’ I believe this system is the only possible system to save the peace of the world.”

Commencing his address, Mr Henderson explained that he was on his way to Australia to attend a peace conference under the auspices of the International Peace Campaign, an organisation of 41 countries, of which New Zealand unfortunately was not a member. It was there intended to focuss world attention on the sanctity of treaties, the need for disarmament, the urgency of a strong League of Nations, and the necessity of repairing the present defective peace machinery. At Brussels last year 4500 delegates from 35 countries had attended a conference, from which Italy, Germany and Jajlan were significant absentees.

“A FARCICAL POSITION.” There was a need, Mr Henderson declared, to reconsider the whole position with regard to the League. The Covenant had been drafted to secure respect for law and the security of all nations belonging to the League. He could not see how it could act for the maintenance of the rule of law if countries that had broken the fundamental principles remained as controlling members of the Council. Japan and Italy were breaking treaties and pacts for which the League stood, including the Covenant itself. “What a farcical position it is!’ Mr Henderson remarked. Japan, without any ajmlogy at all, had made an attack against China; Italy had been declared guilty of unlawful aggression against Abyssinia. It had been calculated that there were 120,000 Italians and 30,000 Germans in Spain; in neither case had war been declared, but a new technique of aggression had been evolved, taking advantage of internal trouble. It was impossible for 120,000 Italians to find their way to Spain and be organised into divisions without the knowledge of the Italian Government. It seemed that the League had again failed. “The international situation could hardly be worse,” declared Mr Henderson. “The world is spending probably more than'£2,ooo,ooo,ooo a year on armament building. It is difficult for the ordinary individual to estimate •w.liat that means, but we are spending two thousand millions a. year on the manufacture of the latest instruments of death, on ’planes flying at 300 miles an hour and with a cruising radius of 1000 miles, ready to drop explosives of 6uch a nature that no building would be proof against them.” Modern warfare, ho added, was nothing more or less than organised killing on _ a large scale. There was nothing heroic about war, even when we remembered the sacrificial spirit displayed by the men. Whichever side won, both lost. It had resolved itself into a question of science. It was time to readjust ideas on patriotism, which did not mean merely beating the big drum and waving the national flag, but pride in the place one’s country could take in tlie advancement of world affairs. It was as glorious to live and serve as to die. RESOLUTIONS NOT ENOUGH.

“But peace will not be obtained merely by passing pious resolutions. While that might be alright as a manifestation it will not solve the problem,” added Mr Henderson. Nations always would have clashes of opinion, and steps had to be taken to establish a svstern for the peaceful settlement of these. The problem confronting man-' kind was peace or arbitrament by war. After the Great War all sorts of agreements had been signed, and an International Court of Justice existed. If all the nations of the world would only carry out their contractual obligations there' would be no more war, for on paper all had agreed to renounce it. In the event of a country being attacked non-resistance might be adopted, but this would be a very severe trial for New Zealand if Japan demanded. say, the South Island. Mr Henderson believed there had been too much lip service to the League, and there was a need for thoughtreadjustment by proponents of peace. There was a spirit of defeatism existent which was more dangerous to the League ideal than the open, declared hostility of Germany and Japan. Ine League’s past failure could not be denied, but that was no reason tor destroying it. The League was not a separate entity, but a, collection ot the representatives of various Governments amenable to the wishes of their people. The League was an instrument to secure the solution of world problems, not the solution itself. It was a means to an end —not the end—and it would fail unless the Covenant obligations were accepted and carried out. Tlie only alternative was return to the prewar system of alliances and balance of power, with catastrophe. Mr Henderson was introduced to the audience bv Mr J. Hodgens, M.P., who presided, and in extending a welcome to tlie visitor stressed the privilege of Palmerston North residents to hear an address from one who bore a name made famous by his illustrious father. At the conclusion of liis address Mr Henderson answered several questions and was accorded a hearty vote of thanks. .