THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1936. MR. JORDAN AT GENEVA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22538, 1 October 1936, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1936. MR. JORDAN AT GENEVA

Our new High Commissioner seems bent on making a name for himself at Geneva. How far he will succeed it is too soon to say. More than I one or two speeches are needed to prove a man an international statesman. If they are chiefly remarkable for their bluntness, their value as such proof is likely to be in inverse proportion to their number It is too early, therefore, to judge Mr. Jordan's service to his own reputation. At the moment, the tendency at Geneva appears to be to compare him with the Soviet Foreign Minister, M. Litvinoff suffering in the comparison. It is not one that enables those whom Mr. Jordan is supposed to represent—the whole of the people of New Zealand, irrespective of party or creed—to say how he stands in personal repute. Some idea can be formed at once, however, as to the efficiency of his service to the reputation of New Zealand and the British Commonwealth of Nations. In this respect he has made a surprisingly disappointing start. For New Zealand he has ventured to say some unfortunate things in an unfortunate way. The people of this country have not given any sign, in spite of what the Government has said in a memorandum, that other nations should be told they ought to hold plebiscites to ascertain whether their peoples [ are willing to support the League. That is a domestic matter in which it is wrong to intermeddle. Nor have New Zealanders, through any appropriate channel, instructed Mr. Jordan to tell the League that, as their experience of the broadcasting of parliamentary debates is that this makes Parliament "a living reality," the League should do the same. Most of the electors of this country know that here the occasional staged debates do not reveal Parliament as its ordinary self at all, and much as they might like to hear League discussions they would not appreciate a broadcast so artificial; still less do they like to think of this limited experiment in their little country —" a small community, isolated geographically," as its Prime Minister describes it—being obtruded as a model for a vast international institution. I

With much that Mr. Jordan has said on the matters he was expected to discuss there will be general agreement, no doubt, in the Dominion. Yet not with all he has said, and not with the dictatorial manner of his saying most of it. New Zealanders travelling abroad have been described by Mr. J. B. Priestley as the most negative, the least obtrusive, of the peoples he has met. This compliment—for as such he frankly meant it—may not be wholly deserved, but the exactly opposite bearing of .Mr. Jordan, outshining the assertive grace of M. Litvinoff, misrepresents the spirit and attitude of New Zealanders to the League. They are profoundly and ardently loyal to its purpose but do not presume to give it instructions. With all due respect to Mr. Jordan, they do not share his opinion that, if collective security be not made effective, it is a waste of time to be represented at Geneva. Action in accordance with that dictum would have taken New Zealand out of the League before Germany and Japan left it. Influence exerted with unwearying effort is likely to achieve more for the world than blustering impatience. With more than a touch of extravagance Mr. Jordan has stated New Zealand's preparedness to undertake a full share of the collective application of force to an aggressor. Is this true? Are New Zealand's own defences so secure, to say nothing of immediate ability to join in punishing a covenantbreaker, that the playing of an effective part in any serious conflict can be contemplated with equanimity by its people? And Mr. Jordan has broken a lance with Britain on regional pacts and with Australia on automatic sanctions without appearing to understand these complex issues. He has a perfect right to hill own opinion, but the head of the Government that appointed him to go to Geneva has used very different terms. Mr. Savage has emphasised the desirability of working in close harmony with the British Government in League affairs, and the Leader of the Legislative Council, speaking for the Government, has declared that, as part and parcel of the British Commonwealth of Nations, New Zealand must rise or fall with it, adding that New Zealand did not want to embarrass the British Government by division amoni; the nations that stood behind that Government. On the matter of defense, inextricably linked with the question of League politics, Mr. Savage has made clear his Government's appreciation of the need to co-opurate with Britain, and in League policy on sanctions has enunciated the principle of "falling into line." Mr. Jordan does not hesitate to embarrass the British Government and to fall out of line. He has apparently taken his brief from detached parts of the Government's memorandum sent to thff League a few weeks ago, and chosen his own course in interpreting its general tone and tenor, to the weakening of British leadership and international amity.