THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1921. AMERICA AND PEACE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17755, 14 April 1921, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1921. AMERICA AND PEACE

\ o It would .appear that Aruericans are J not so indifferent to the Treaty of | Versailles as during the Presidential j election the Republicans represented them to be. At all events the Re-. publican nominee now suggests to Congress the acceptance of the treaty without the Covenant of the League of Nations. He declares a separate peace to be " inadequate," which is a discreet way of admitting the Democratic argument that by 1 i concluding a separate peace America • ; would Jose many of the victorious _ | rights and privileges which fall to | her under the Versailles Treaty. j There is in no Allied country any | desire that she should be so penalised. Her sacrifices for the eom- ! ffion ideal keep good her title to the ! comparatively modest gains, none of , j them territorial, which she makes under the treaty. Though Europe deeply regrets America's defection during the difficult period of reconi struction, in some ways a severer test of moral purpose than the actual hostdities, she will facilitate - j any effort which the Washington 31 Government may now make to reap j the fruits of the peace, while rejecting some of its responsibilities- It f; is obvious that the negotiation of a 0 | separate peace with Germany would ,1 j be a tedious business, and that in 1 i its process America might lose j | several of the economic advantages A | already credited to her in the VerL ! sailles Treaty. If, therefore, Mr. j Harding and the Congress can find j a way of ratifying the treaty, even 1 while rejecting a covenant which is " | an integral part of its structure, no | obstacles are likely to be put in their d way by the Allies. In accepting ■o j the League the Allies supposed it il.to be an American* conception. a! Having discovered their mistake rt ' they will not commit the second [I j error of attempting to hold the j United States to the engagements ! of their peace delegate. • I The definite rejection of the j Covenant by the United States . Government clears the way for a inew international peace effort. ■ | Some of Mr. Harding's speeches and j his association with many warm | friends of the League in the Republi- ! can ranks had raised the hope that jhe would propose that America j should join the League on condi- | tions, such as the waiving of j Article 10 of the Covenant, which | Europe would readily have granted. I That hope has proved vain, and j Europe must now reconcile herself .., to the fact that America will have nothing to do with the League in its j present form and under its present • j name. The most ardent supporters , i of the League will be the first to | admit that this is an almost fatal j blow. They will, indeed, dissent J profoundly from Mr. Harding's as- ! sumption that the League is already ■ j dead. On the contrary the League has given so many evidences of j vitality and has so large a volume | of humanitarian achievement to" its | credit that only the adhesion of j America was required to make it a j very effective instrument of interi national justice. If it is any satis- ! faction to Mr. Harding to know that i he has destroyed a very promising | bud of international co-operation, then he may be left to continue his somewhat premature inquest on the I League, but what of the future? j Even if the Republican attitude j toward the League is influenced by . party particularism Mr. Harding j may be credited with being perJ fectly sincere when he invites the | nations to form a new peace association. Europe will respond, not beI cause she admits the failure of the I League or because, she accepts all the Republican objections to it, but simply because she realises that a j League from which America is dis- ! sociated labours under an almost in- | supportable handicap. Her amour i propre might move her to decline the invitation, but this is no time j for pettiness, and if the League of Nations is true to its own ideals it ; will be the first to welcome and ex- > | plore any proposals for supplanting j ■ it by an organisation making a wider ■ appeal to humanity. ; ; The next move lies with Mr. | j Harding. The League of Nations is | in being and must be considered to | hold the field until something more I workable is evolved. In some respects Mr. Harding has a greater opportunity than that which presented itself to his predecessor in | office. The world has an. evea more

vivid sense than in 1919 of the horror of war, and is even more anxious to avoid another demonstration of the awful powers of destruction with which science is increasingly equipping the forces of all countries. Assuredly an appeal for world peace will not fall on deaf ears. Will Mr. Harding make his message worthy of the occasion 1 He will not unless he escapes from the atmosphere of the hustings- It was excusable to say during the Presidential election that the League was a league of super-Powers. It is indiscreet to say so now; also it is inaccurate. The Republicans have professed to desire an extension of The Hague plan of international co-operation. They have pretended to find in the League of Nations a militaristic combination governing by force. Let them abandon those platform figures. Let them be just to the League without being partial so that whatever it contains of good may be saved for humanity. Let them realise that the League has adopted a workable plan for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice after The Hague Conference, the Republican model, had failed to do so. Let them realise that the social and economic activities of *the League are of the highest value. Let them realise that if the League failed to discover a basis of disarmament the failure was primarily due on the negative side to the absence of American co-operation and on the positive side to the untimely expansion of the American Navy. If this failure to check armaments be considered fundamental it but increases the responsibilities thrown on Mr. Harding's Administration. America's revised peace programme will be judged very largely by this testEvery nation professes the samehalting attachment as Mr. Harding to " approximate" disarmament, and each is waiting for a lead. If An]erica, instead of insisting upon her right to arm until others disarm, claims the privilege of being the first to retrench, her example will be nobly infectious. No other nation can with the same safety, the same confidence, and the same certainty give the world this lead. Will America give it? If she does, she will be a peace-maker indeed ; if not she will but ask the world to substitute the Tweedledee of Washington for the Tweedledum of Geneva.