A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR

New Zealand Herald, Volume 78, Issue 24084, 1 October 1941, Page 4

A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR

Sir, —We must have a substitute for war. We must have an international authority to which nations wilt refer their disputes. Would Federal Union give us a more effective instrument than a League of Nations? The League failed to prevent war certainly, but living under one Government has failed to prevent war a hundred times as often. Federal Union did not prevent one of the great wars of history in the United States, and Federal Union, extended over the earth, would, in fact, give us the weakest, of all forms of government for the prevention of war. A national Government has an armed force on its own territory, while no party desiring to rebel against its authority can have such a force. With Federal Union, the Federal Government would have no territory of its own, and so could have no army of its own. For armed forces it would depend on the member States, and each member State would hold its force on its own territory for its own protection. Thus, under Federal Union, the armed forces of the world could be stationed and controlled precisely as they would be under a League of Nations. Men serving in these forces might be required to take an oath of allegiance to the Federal Government, but they could be required to take the same oath of allegiance to the League of Nations. If the nations are willing to stand by the decisions of an international authority, then either a League or a Union could prevent war. Failing that condition, neither would prevent war. Which, then, should we choose, a League that would leave us national liberty, or a Union that would deprive of us of national liberty? Manurewa. J. Johnstone.