CHAOS IN EUROPE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11223, 31 May 1922, Page 7

CHAOS IN EUROPE

ESONOMIC AND POLITICAL “DISARMAMENT THE FIRST THING NEEDFUL.” WORK FOR LEAGUE OF NATIONS. An interesting and informative address on the League of Nations was given at the Wellington Rotary Club luncheon yesterday by Professor W. H Pringle (late of Edinburgh, and now of Otago University) who was the guest ofi honour. Rotarian D. A. Ewen presided over a large attendance, and among the other guests present were the Primate of New Zealand, the Rt. Rev. Archbishop Julius, the Rev. Dr. Gibb and Professor B. E. Murphy.

NEW ZEALAND’S HESITANCY. New Zealand, stated Professor Pringle, had hitherto rather lagged behind in regard to this important movement. It was the only Dominion uncJer tho British Crown in which no prominent statesman or politician had publicly identified himself with the cause of the League of Nation©. In Canada, Sir Robert Bowden (the ex-Premier), Mr King (the present Prime Minister), and the deader of the Farmers’ Party had all spoken strongly in its favour. In South' Africa there was a strong League of Nations Union, of which General Smuts Prime Minister) was president; while in Australia there were three State branches of the union, and eminent politicians like Senator Pearce and Mr Crawford Vaughan had taken a prominent part in the movement. But in New Zealand prominent men had, for some reason, hesitated to commit themselves. He believed, however, that the era of hesitation was rapidly drawing to a close. They had formed that morning a Dominion Union of the League of Nations Union in New Zealand; and they hoped before long to arouse the active support of every eectioln of the community.. (Applause.) CAUSES OF CHAOS.

Approaching the question—not from the humanitarian nor the social. but from the practical business point of view-—he pointed out that the Ireaty of Versailles had completely disorganised the economic life of Europe. Territories had’ been tom from the states to which they were formerly attached and joined up to new States, and great industrial towns, formerly the centres of large agricultural areas, had been forcibly torn from their natural economic surroundings and left high and dry, without trade routes, and without adequate access to food supplies and raw materials. Vienna was a striking case in point. Then there was the fact that iron and coal mines and great industrial districts, once all of a piece,' were now all disjointed. Silesia, for instance, had been divided 1 up between Germany and Poland, and for thirteen years the Saar valley had been handed over to France. The economic unity of Europe as a whole had been destroyed', and every State during the past few years had been extending its debt, multiplying its issues of paper money, and the ’general tendency was towards chaos and disintegration. Unless a remedy could be found pretty promptly no one could say what the state of Europe, would be in a few years from now. And what could the League of Nations do to remedy this state of affairs? ■ •; ••- WAR'S AFTERMATH.

One important point that it was very necessary to remember was that to a largo extent the economic condition of Europe to-day was to a very large extent due to the debts incurred during the \var. The total cost of the war to the United Kingdom was estimated at 8900 millions sterling, of which 1400 millions was obtained by taxation, leaving a total war debt of 7500 millions. Tho national debt of Franc© was sometliing in the neighbourhood of 10,500 to 11,000 millions: that of Italy was roughly speaking equal to her national capital; and since America entered the war she had lent to Britain 879 millions, of which the Mother Country had passed cn to various Continental Allies 872 millions. Every nation had debts that was both internal and external, and tho tangle to-day was so extraordinary that there was no factor contributing more to the disorganisation of Europe than the want of settlement of theßo international debts. That was one of the fundamental weaknesses of tho present situation..

PROCESSION OF CONFERENCES. The statesmen of Europe had held thirteen conferences since the Treaty of Versailles. He had spent a long time trying to find out what the last conference at Genoa had done, and all he could seo was the statesmen of Europe had decided to have yet another conference at Tho Hague in a few weeks’ time. AVhy were there these processions to one conference after another? SOME OF THE CAUSES. The first cause of all was the totally unnecessary British election of 1918, which had raised false hopes on the Continent and had led France to adopt a very reactionary policy. The second cause was the failure of tho United States to come into tho League of Nations. Ho was not blaming America at all, because America was not prepared to assist Europe so iong as Europe was not prepared to organise its economic life on a 6table basis. Tho United States deliberately said that it would stand aside from the participation in . European affaire, until Europe was politically and economically prepared for peace. And ho thought that a very important third reason tv by the statesmen of Europe had failed to come to any important result at Genoa was that they had all been unwilling to trust to the League of Nations. They had instead concentrated their authority on the Supreme Council of tho Allies, which though necessary immediately after the war was now an anachronism. What was wanted, he urged, _ was a conference of the League of Nations, at which the war temper and tho war spirit would bo laid aside, and each and all of the nations of Europe would be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to re-establish peace. (Applause.) Fifty-one nations now belonged to the league. A number of people would tell them that the ieague was only a fad of a number of oid women and sentimental men. But that was far from being true. WHAT LEAGUE HAB DONE Tho League had already prevented thro© wars breaking out in Europe—the first between Sweden and Finland over tho Aaland Islands, tho second between Poland and Lithuania, and the third between tho Serb-Croat-Siovak States and Albania; and it had also dono an immense amount of work in E reventing tTie submergence of Europe y overflow- of typhus ami other diseases from the East. Further, it had doue a great deal to reorganise the transport systems of Europe, weav-

ing together again the broken and disorganised railways of the Continent. But, after all, the great question that had been before tho League, and would be before the League in the immediate future, was the question of disarmament. Owing largely to the difficulties raised by France, the Washington Conference had not been able to deal with land disarmament. Only the League, of Nations, he ventured to think, could effectively deal with the problem—first, because the League included all the European nations, except Germany and Russia; and, second, because the League was already dealing with it, and that on very much the same lines that America had at Washington dealt with the question of naval disarmament. WHAT LEAGUE IS DOING. At the last assembly of the League, held in September, 1921, a mixed commission, with Lord Esher as president, had been set up, and it was to report to the meeting of the Council to be held this year, with the object of the Council bringing up certain agreed proposals to be discussed at next meeting of the assembly (the Parliament of the League) next year. The proposals of the commission were that each standing army, to which only they referred, should be divided into cadres of 30,000 men, every nation to be allowed so many. France, which had now 800,000 men, waa to be .allowed six; Italy and Poland, with 450,000 to 500,000 men, were to be allowed four units; Great Britain, whose Army now numbered 300,000 men, would be allowed three units. Thus the relative strength of the standing armies would be, roughly, the same as now, but the army of France would be 180,000, instead of 800,000 men; Italy and Poland would have 120,000, instead of 450,000 to 500,000; and Britain 90,000 Jnstead of 300,000. That was practioally the principle adopted at Washington in regard to naval disarmament; and while preserving the relative strength of armies, it would enable the various nations of Europe to substantially reduce the cost of their military forces. It npw remained to be seen whether the Council would pass on the proposals for discussion by tho Assembly. Professor Pringle emphasised the fact that tho budgets of the European nations could not possibly be made to balance unless some such scheme of (disarmament was brought about-; nor could trade and industry be relieved of the existing huge tax burdens; nor could the disorganised political and economic life of Europe have any real chance to become stabilised. “FOR THE COMMON GOOD.” The object of the League of Nations was to enable the nations, not only to work out their individual (destinies, but to co-operate together for the good of each and all. Some things could be done by the nationa as,individuals. Others could only be done by international co-operation; and, apart from such cooperation, he did not think there was any future for Europe. Only such cooperation could bring stability, economic! and political; and without siucb stability we would have a spirit of Bolshevism throughout Europe that would wreck everything. Mr Vanderlipp (the American observer at the Genoa Conference) had said that if tho reconstruction of Europe was too long delayed, he believed that the great tragedy of Europe would be in the future, and that its scene might lie in the British Isles. They of the League of Nations Union, therefore, pleaded for the League of Nations, not from any vague sentimentalism, not from mere humanitananism, but because they believed that it presented the only proper and businesslike way of dealing with the huge tangle in which European affairs were involved as the result of the war. (Applause.) A very hearty vote -of thanks was accorded tho speaker.