"OUT OF STEP AT GENEVA"

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23040, 18 May 1938, Page 17

"OUT OF STEP AT GENEVA"

1 Sir, —As an elector whn attained the franchise lor the first time at the last general election permit me to say that ' I am proud to be represented at Geneva by Mr. Jordan, and proud of the Government for which he speaks. At a conference which will be ranked by posterity as one of the most humiliating and contemptible events in modern history, he remained one of those who still dared to place honour and principles above considerations of temporary advantage. There arc two justifications for his action. First, the practical fact that desertion of the ideals I upon which the League of Nations was founded will not pay in the ultimate. , Secondly, because there are worse things than war. Moral degradation, loss of honour, loss of self-respect. Ghastly though war may be it is better to be prepared to fight, if necessary, for that which is right rather than • to maintain a vassal's peace, fawning upon international law-breakers. If the 1 people of England permit their representatives to perpetrate these shameful acts of unctuous "diplomacy" much longer I, and many other 1 thoughtful people will cease to be glad ! of our British nationality. To-day it is fashionable to apologise for ideals, to ; snigger at pride. These sentiments can , bo dubbed "heroics." I do not apologise for such "heroics." When the youth of the world ceases to voice and to uphold evolutionary ideas such as those which inspired the League, , humanity will indeed have become a ; degenerate and decaying species. Rita Chapman. Sir, —"After the adjournment," says your cabled report of the League Council's discussion on recognition of the Abyssinian conquest, "the delegates agreed that the debate was one of the saddest in the history of the League." Thousands of New Zealanders will agree. 'J'liis Dominion, far from the seat of tlie many troubles that beset the Old World and lacking the means to implement any international "policy" it nifty enunciate, lias been granted a seat on the League Council. ■ To find that its representative makes no better use of this honour than blatantly, to air a spurious sentimentality, directly antagonistic to considered, declared and responsible British policy, makes one blush with humiliation.' Recently you quoted from the Sunday Times Lord Hoseberv's dictum, recalled by Mr. J. A. Spender, that an Opposition ought never to urge a reluctant Government to a policy which might load to war. Lord Rosebery spoke of a period when one Parliament alone in the 'Km pi re enunciated and implemented the Empire's foreign policy. Implementation, to all intents, remains in that same Parliament's hands; but enunciation, in theory, may bo practised by several Parliaments. How much more widely does Lord Roscbcrv's principle require to bo applied to-day, and with what care and regard for the consequences should any enunciation of policy be practised by a daughter Parliament! Who can say what mischief will flow from Mr. Jordan's outburst? Never, surely, was a united Empire voice in foreign policy more important; seldom have international relationships been strained so taut, and seldom have so many issues, happenings and possibilities required to be sifted, considered and reckoned with, lest a false move cause a fracture. And never have the consequences of fracture been so utterly appalling. A recent statement by Mr. Savage, prompted by a question ill tho House of_ Commons, admitted that the Dominion Government liad not agreed with all aspects of British foreign policy, but he announced that opposition would not bo carried to the length of dividing the commonwealth. Mr. Savage must be credited with knowing the meaning of the statements lie utters, and thus he must be looked to for such explanation as he j may be able to offer of tho division in the ranks of the commonwealth all too apparent at Geneva. W.R.S.O. |