DISARMAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13483, 6 July 1907, Page 5 (Supplement)

DISARMAMENT.

' ' --" i' . BY. W. A. LLOYD }. ' a .m.-v Wellington Branch International. t : (0° n ' Art,»» am ) I,CW!O Um "' atlo,,) ' ( : , : -l,n«t«ri*tic th slipshod phrase- 1 . ' IT „ f the day that . disarmament does . o,y Jan a movement in favour of dis- J '■" "In- but merely a limitation of anna- c f i the bisis of a common understand- j \ &££*•*>«••• K »™"" I ' , LIMITATION'. i « Ilß |i limitation, us an abstract proposi- 1 r- i rt , the unqualified support of a ma- c Sv of European statesmen. Whether it 1 £* within the bounds of practical poli- , ? isi''i question on which a great diyerg- *- nee of opinion exists. While the proposal , So** its '' lf alike to the economist and ! Si nifiriau vet I will not be advanced ; hS-.nvll.ing but a frank recognition of the ' JLendous difficulties involved in the way , 0 ,ccon.plisl.ment. It- is significant of the j . llkness of the opposition that the move- i ■ IL, Ins never been onnosed from the { Li »'nd L 'thi««l standpoint- Opponents « ' We concentrated their efforts on two , h'ncsontv: Desirability and practicability , desirability ill view of modern interna- t tionil development and practicability as t ' , relating to the workableness of any scheme < proposal. Ol .osrnox. ] Those who oppose limitation because pre- , ■Hit conditions compel huge armaments are 1 under the necessity of proving that such < ' "■/ conditions are necessarily permanent, other- ( " '■'.' wise the contention has no meaning. Now, j • we may-at once admit that present eondi- . lions render huge armaments imperatively i necessary, as'ft guarantee of national secur- J jijv A"* 0 " this is just ' ,ere a great deal of j misconception exists. / Nobody proposes . limitation under existing; conditions. To . "' * do' so would be tantamount to advocating i ~■''national suicide, and advocates of limita- : ti'on are just as capable of recognising this < fact as their opponents. No one section of , • the community possesses a monopoly of con- , ccrn for the national well-being. Aclvo- , rates of limitation are hardly angels— 1 yet, anyhow, whatever their future state ! might be—and they are unlikely to sacrifice ! ■ the nation to an ideal, however beautiful. The , ,j point of attack is not the armaments them- , .%: selves, but the- conditions which render , '~:' them necessary, and not even the most bellicose, individual would maintain we should keep our navy and army up to their pre- ">",< , sent standard if there were no necessity for , so doing. Once this important fact is grasped many who now oppose limitation will become its ardent advocates. It is conceded that a large army and navy .mini- ; iters to the national vanity of any country, { .' and that human nature manages to extract a ( good deal of complacent satisfaction from , : being able to go one better than the other . fellow, lint thoughtful men everywhere realise that something more than this is \ required to justify the enormous and crushing war-budgets "of the nations. PRACTICABILITY. *- The nations are sending to the Hague ~ their most representative men. Whatever the result of their deliberations, any scheme"advanced must be submitted for the approval, ; or otherwise, of their respective Govern- -"', ments. . It is not incumbent on those fav- '/;'; ouring limitation to formulate a scheme" for attainment of the end desired. That is the : . • business of the able jurisconsults who compose the Conference, and they bring to their'task the brightest intellects of their age and civilisation. There is no desire to :>; minimise the- difficulty of securing altera--tion of existing- conditions in the direction ', of providing means other than war for set:.y; tlement of international disputes. The 'in- ,'; herent selfishness of the nations, their mutual distrust, leading them to impute, unworthy motives to each other, all bar the way in a direction necessarily implying mutual trust and belief in each other's lion- • «sty of purpose. -" . DISLOYALTY? : .Among certain -opjuments'of : limitations • ftiere is a tendency''to charge its advocates " with a, species' of "disloyalty. Perhaps the ■•.;'; .charge.'ls not often made openly, but it is none,-the less implied in some of the attacks on the movement, as anyone who has discussed the matter with the man in the . street must- know. No proof is - offered in support of such a serious allegation, and those win make the. charge are cither lamentably ignorant of the question or are guilty of-deliberate misrepresentation." Let us hope the former is the true explanation. -' Why love of one's own country should •'■ mean hatted of the other fellow's has never been explained, nor ever likely to be. ;:... As reasonable to maintain that love of .; one's own family implied the necessity of pursuing the man next door with a gun. Of course the contention is ridiculous, but -. it is the logical outcome of such reasoning, or want of reasoning. As Britons, not " Britishers,"- by the way, which is a mere vulgar neologism, 1 we are naturally proud of the glorious traditions of our race, proud of its contribution to the sum of human progress. -In common with all other nations, there are sins of omission'and com- • ;: mission that may fairly be laid to our . pharge. Nevertheless, it is because there is so much to be legitimately proud of in :mr past history, so much that has contributed to our present pre-eminence, that we desire to still lead in all that makes for progress. Pride in our past is justifiable; and, if it act as an incentive to noble action „ • in the future/it is a valuable national asset. ; : THE PRESS. " What;are some of the means by which it" is proposed to alter present conditions? It is proposed to create a healthy public opinion on the matter of war, by educating the people on the different aspects of thequestion. Once get a majority of those who have to pay the piper to see not merely :■',: the inhumanity of war, and its utter barbarity, but its futility, and the rest is plain sailing. In a, democratic age there •-: is no necessity to bother about the atti- ;.. . tude of Governments. Government keeps /'.,-. one eye on the constituencies all the time, , »nd is only too ready to register the popular • mandate. Once the people decide on any--tiling, it is as good as done, and once they ■ 'decide that war is not a payable proposition Governments will be compelled to find -some other way . of adjusting their little differences. For'the education of the people, and the creation of a sane public opinion on the subject of war, the Press is far and • V »way the most potent instrument. In the .modern world the Press lias taken the place of the Church in medieval times as the greatest factor in the formation of public 'opinion. It is pleasant to reflect that its attitude on this great question has been , ■ . worthy of its highest traditions. Even • where doubtful of the practicability of limitation, it has been almost uniformly sym- - pathetic. How much the movement owes to this attitude it is impossible to sav, but ■»> is certain nothing like present, progress .would have been possible but for Press sun- » ", port. • . ■ J ' TIIB CHURCH. .So far as the Church is concerned, and the W fl!? '".used in. its wider application and ... official sense, its attitude, on the whole, has ' been pathetically disappointing. It is somewhat difficult to speak plainly on this phase c-f the subject—so easy to be misunderstood, «' difficult to avoid giving pain. And vet those, are the. true friends of the Church who .' desire, to see her take her rightful place as . the greatest of all forces making for righteousness -among men. From Hildebraud's dream of a 'universal theocracv, fascinating by reason of the grandeur of the concep- . tion, we seem to have got down to an end- ' Jess number of warring sects, pitiable in WiPif impotency. The regrettable divisions ■ tween the various denominations render combined action in any one direction al- . most impossible. One despairs of common -, ■ action on the basis of common- agreements, - , mv "ing to each being so busy discovering V ? ew disagreements, and accentuating the importance of old ones. If men have lost " withi '" the Church, perhaps it is because |r SMy rcl " vein's-1.» have lost- faith in her™|K. this was not the spirit which enabled Primitive Church to conquer the. might c . . >~ I . a ? i *«i"m. It must not be imagined the '-■"urcli has ever opposed limitation; indeed, it could hardly do that; but its alti--t tude is decidedly lukewarm. To those who ~_ - ova the Church, it is a matter for regret , . »>at it has been left to the civil governments of the world to initiate the greatest

humanitarian movements of this, or any other 4 age. v However, we cahndt''"uhdo'the-'"' past; but we. can, in a. measure, retrieve it by future action. s The present is a magni-. .limit opportunity to show, that we still hold to the principles of the Magna Cliarta of Christendom,, the Sermon.• on the Mount. In.New Zealand, at any rate, whatever.may be true elsewhere, the Church has shown, herself sympathetic toward the movement. Still, the Church ought to lead in this, as in everything else which makes for 'the uplifting of humanity;.and, even here, it would hardly be true to say she is doing that. It might not be wise to say this; but if it is true, then it ought to be said. Perhaps no writer who courts popularity should ever tell the truth, if it is unpleasant; but popularity or unpopularity is a small thing in comparison to doing one's duty as one honestly conceives it. Unfortunately, those who should lead are too often merely led, and place and power in organisations pregnant with vast possibilities for good are often monopolised by time-serving weaklings who inspire nothing but disgust. By penalising those who dare speak the truth, we are placing a premium on hypocrisy. Happily, there are those in every denomination who are worthy of their high calling, and it is to them we must look for help in the present crusade. The objective of the Conference should meet with the earnest approval of all who desire the welfare of humanity, of the Christian Church especially. Some may object that limitation, or the substitution of arbitration for war, does not come within the scope of the Church's activity. Such contention shows a very limited view of the real mission of the Church. Broad as the need for humanity, so broad is the Church's rightful sphere of action. Life is not divided into a number of watertight compartments, into some of which religion may not enter. On the contrary, everything in life is correlative, and religion, and the Church '. as its expounder, bears, or should bear, a relationship to every aspect of it. The Conference is the visible expression of. a noble ideal. It is the result of years of toil on the part of those who believed passionately in the ultimate triumph of good? over all the powers of evil. These men possessed the priceless jewel of Faith, without which nothing great can be accomplished. The. Church ought to be the strongest factor in the regeneration of mankind, but she is weak, because she is divided, and men will not heed an organisation which speaks with; different, 'and sometimes contradictory, tongues. Of course, if we desire merely to follow the line of least resistance, we shall rest content with things as they are. But, if the Church desires to be left alone in the process of committing slow suicide, then she must not complain if she has neither part nor lot in the glorious work of the future. QUEER—VERY! The writer has had some of the most amusing experiences of a. rather varied life in discussing the question of war among those with whom he comes into contact. Men, who would not hurt a fly, have solemnly stated that war was a Divinely-or-dained institution, and were prepared 'with chapter and verse to support their contention. These amazing individuals professed to be followers of the Prince of Peace, and are accustomed to pray for the coming of Christ's Kingdom, though how that desirable, consummation can ever be brought about while war lasts is a knotty problem, too difficult, anyhow, for the writer .. to tackle. Others have affirmed that war was Nature's way of keeping down population. It never seems to have occurred to these people that war destroys the fit, not the unfit, and it" is rather rough on Nature to saddle it with the responsibility of killing the tit, while leaving the unfit to propagate the race: Again, others objected that •military service was ■ physically beneficial, though why we should strive to benefit iiien physically,' only to kill them off is a mystery. Moreover, if military training makes such an enormous physical difference, then the nations where such training is both, universal and compulsory should 'make a belter showing, physically, than those nations where it is neither. But do France and Germany make a better showing in this respect than Great Britain and America?- If they don't, and no one seriously maintains they do, then there is nothing in the contention. '..',. • :. EXPENSE. . ' > : .No article on" disarmament would be com-: : plete without reference-to the financial burden entailed' by the maintenance of armies and, navies. To take Europe as an example : The war-budget of Europe in 1899 j was, approximately, 205 millions sterling. In 1906 the sum had risen to about 280 millions. This is an increase of 74 millions, equal to 26 per cent. Including the increase in the New World, and in Asia, mankind is paying something' like 120 millions more for defence than eight years ago. an average annual increase of 15 millions. One hundred and twenty millions per annum is equivalent to 4 per cent, on a capital sum of £3,000,000,000. - In other words, the equal of a new .debt of 3000 millions has been placed, on the shoulders of the world's toilers! And we talk about trade depression, about the unemployed, and the impossibility in Europe of finding the money for old age pensions. Is there any wonder? The marvel is we have borne the. burden so long. .'. That this kind of thing can't go on indefinitely is generally admitted. So that, after all, whether we favour limitation now, or oppose it. we have to acquiesce in limitation at the point of financial exhaustion. Consequently,' the only question is, shall we cry "Halt!" now, or let things' slide until forced to stop owing to having reached the limit of our financial tether? THE SUPREME BARBARISM. . War stands self-condemned as the supreme barbarism. It is a monstrous anachronism in an allegedly civilised state of society. It destroys respect for the moral law, creates a false code of honour, and debases all who have anything to do with it. It outrages those humanitarian principles which should regulate our conduct toward each other, engendering "envy, hatred, - malice, and all uneharitableness" toward those who share with us thy burdens common to life.. No compromise is possible. War must be stripped of 'the falsi- glamour which surrounds it, and exposed in all its hideous nakedness. Then men and womenwill shrink from the nameless horror in terror and disgust. . "War is hell!" So said one of America's ablest generals. The phrase is strong, but it about sums up the ' situation, so it may stand. War against war, Eros against ' Mars. Right against Wrong, and who can doubt the issue? -..