LEAGUE OF NATIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11650, 15 October 1923, Page 6

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

The speeches of the dominion representatives at the Imperial Conference, in the course of the discussion on Lord Robert Cecil's review of the work of the League of Nations, will be read with considerable interest, not only throughout the British Empire, but in all other parte of the world. That these speeches revealed a striking unanimity on the part of the dominion delegates as to the necessity for the existence of the League of Nations must have been extremely gratifying to Lord Robert Cecil, as it undoubtedly will be to all supporters of the League. The opinion was expressed by all the dominion Premiers that without such a body as the League of Nations as an effective leash, another conflict was almost inevitable in Europe, and that into such a conflict the Britains overseas would be bound to be drawn, and the same is true of America.

We would commend this view to the very careful consideration of President Coolidge and his advisers. It is very disappointing, to say the least, that the new President of the United States is adhering even more strictly than did his predecessor to America’s old-fashioned and short-sighted policy of aloofness from European affairs. If the determined avoidance of so-called “entangling alliances” would of a certainty prevent America being drawn into wars originating in Europe, there would be something to be said for the stand taken by President Coolidge. It ■would, at all events, square with that “discretion” which has been credited with being “the better part of valour.” But such discretion, when carried too far, becomes cowardice; and it i 6, surely, an excess of discretion that keeps America from bearing a hand and assisting tlie League of Nations to the titmost of her powder in its herculean task of maintaining the peace in Europe and enabling the war-wearied peoples of the Old World to solve their many and grievous post-war problems.

America has a giant’s strength. She suffered least of all the Allies in the hard-fought fight to uphold our twentieth century ideals of right and liberty ; and Tl is, therefore, up to her to see to it that the Entente Allies, whom she helped to win the war, do not, for lack of lior advice and assistance, lose the peace. It i 6 well to have a giant’s strength; but the terrible example of Germany has taught the world that it is not well to use it a 9 a giant. It is well to have a giaht’s strength; but great strength brings with it great responsibilities. Since the war, America, has not adequately recognised that-fact. She has not fully measured up to the great responsibilities that her giant strength entails. Surely, while there is yet time, her statesmen will see to it that, in this time of gravest difficulty and acutest world-crisis, she does not, “through craven fear of being great,” fail in her duty, not only to Europe, but to herself and to humanity at largo.

The mere avoidance of entangling alliances will not enable the United States to steer clear of war. That was clearly demonstrated by tho Great War. But, if America throw’s her full weight on tho side of peace and righteousness, she can undoubtedly put an end to war, secure tho reduction of armaments—whether on land, on sea, or in the air—to a minimum, stabilise the whole world of industry and commerce, and thus immensely benefit all the nations of the earth. This, indeed, is by far the greatest thing that America can do—tho greatest for herself, the greatest for the whole -world. Mr Lloyd George, who is nothing if not sanguine, told the newspaper men at Ontario the other day that if .Britain used the League of Nations w’ith tact, to enforce peace, she could prevent all wars without hostilities, if she made it plain she would not tolerate war. Be that as it may, it is very certain that if both Britain and America threw' their full weight into the scale, war would he no more.