THE UNION OF NATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16657, 29 September 1917, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE UNION OF NATIONS.

BY WM. SATCHELL.

HOW IT CAN BE EFFECTED. - ( , . ' , ] i ' ] , j ' ' J , < 1 « ' i < ] i ' ' ' 1 | ; '. ' , ; ■ i , , ; i . ; ] ; ' '

TnK greatest obstacle to tho bringing about of a durable peace between nations is to be found in the diverse forms of government which exist among the potential contracting parties. With absolute power in the hands of one man, or of a group or'class of men, no stability of policy is to be expected. A monarch dies and is succeeded by another of different .character and opinions. He finds the arrangements entered into by his predecessors irksome, and, in tho absence of force to prevent him, he may break and denounco treaties not of his individual making. As the State exists for his benefit, tho obligations of the State will for him have no sacrodness, and all written bonds may at any time become "scraps of paper." With the contracting parties all democracies this danger is at least minimised. It is minimised by the stability of the multitude; the instinct to hold on to the old order to the last moment which is characteristic of mankind as a whole. The more adventurous spirits may and do kick at this inertness, but there can be no doubt that to it the human species has time and «again owed its salvation. How the Bees Decide. Have you ever watched a swarm of bees, hanging like a huge pear to a branch? It is surrounded by a cloud of those who are coming and going. It maintains the same appearance for days, and even, sometimes, for weeks, yet every individual in the swarm is possessed of complete mobility, and— the' exception of the queen—leaves and returns at will. There is here a resemblance, not merely fanciful, to human society: the mobility of the units combined with adherence to form of the mass. The will of the queen bee may dissolve the cluster at any moment, as the will of a despot may plunge his people into war. But if we take the democratic view we see in the bees that come and go the representatives of the State seeking a site for the new hive. Many possible locations are discovered and visited by the units of the swarm, but eventually the superiority of certain sites becomes impressed on the searchers. At this stag)| we may imagine the bees leaving the cluster in two nearly equal streams, and for a long time the choice may remain in doubt. Ultimately, howevor, tho popularity of one site prevails; bees are lost in increasing numbers from one stream and gained by the other. It is a pure decision by majority, and observe that when tho final combined flight is taken every bee in the swarm is familiar with the route and ablo to guide the queen directly to the new abode. The society of the bees, however, is simple and perfect, ours is immensely complex and correspondingly imperfect. An approach to the ideal democracy is not to be found. Even in England— land of liberty—approximately two-thirds of the population has no say in the country's government. The Social Upheaval. Now, I believe that the world of mankind is at this moment in the mood for drastic changes. The imminent presence of tho realities of life and death in the consciousness of hundreds of millions of human beings has uprooted belief in the permanence of social institutions, and revealed them as they are, mere temporary adjustments in an ever-shifting environment. All our ideas are In a state of flux. Reforms, the suggestion of which a. score of months ago would have roused ridicule or iiery denunciation, are now adopted daily with scarce a dissentient voice. Collectivism three years ago was anathema to the ruling classes; to-day it is felt on all hands to be the first necessity for victory. Three years ago it would have been pronounced impossible to raise a thousand million pounds for the most transcendent purpose conceivable; during tho past year England alone has expended two thousand . million in works of destruction. We may nc longer speak of the impossible either in finance or reform, for the miracle of yesterday has become the commonplace of to-day. Uniting the Empire.' From the welter of fresh ideas which is flooding the human mind I have fished up the few that follow. They divide themselves naturally under two headi, imperial and international , Taking the Empire first, I believe the solution of most of our difficulties is to be found in tho granting of self-government to every constituent State desiring it and the enfranchisement of every adult, male and female. The latter needs no advocacy in this country. Of the former, it is often said that certain peoples are _ not vet ready for representative institutions,, but this is a more assertion, passing glibly from lip to lip, entirely unsupported by experiment or argument. it".le by majority, which we have seen to succeed so admirably among the bees, should not without very, good reason be rejected for intelligent beings. After all, are not the objections raised to the granting of self-government to India, for example, founded less in fear of what the majority might do than the dread of what might be accomplished by the minority? Against the greed and arrogance of individuals and classes within India's own borders and in every other part of the Empire it would be necessary to provide, and for this purpose among others there should exist an Imperial Council. On the walls of its meeting-houße should be inscribed these golden words: "That alone is expedient which is just." And to maintain justice an army should be recruited from every portion of the Empire. Uniting the World. From this partnership of free States it is a step scarcely perceptible, howover momentous, to the greater union of nations. What holds apart Great Britain and France from a bond as close as that which binds together the Boer and the Briton? If wo will be content not to endeavour to overreach one another, to ask of one another no more than justice, then all things will be given to us. But once we contemplate the admission _to the union of States not already forming part of the Empire we are confronted by the necessity of defining our objects and stating the qualifications which must be possessed by would-be members. To my mind there can be no partnership between tho free and the bond, or rather between the free and those who hold others in bondage. Evory State of the union, therefore, whether it have as its figurehead a king, emperor, or president, should be a democracy, governed by the people for the people, To such a union there are already many nations which could readily qualify to belong. Great Britain and France, the United States, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, and the two Scandinavian Kingdoms could without internal dissentions make the necessary constitutional changes. , Finally, it is necessary to determine the object of such a union. It is manifest that it can only be the highest— good of humanity. Economic advantage at the expense of outsiders would doubtless result, whether such were stated as an object or not, but this would only provide an additional inducement for nonunion States to qualify for membership. When finally the union embraced all peoples its persistence would depend on the universal recognition that it was good , i |or humanity