PHRASE WORSHIP.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18198, 19 March 1921, Page 8

PHRASE WORSHIP.

Self-determination is just now one of those blessed words which lead men into strange blunders. As a principle it is capable of definite application in cer.tain cases, but those who seek to give it general application find themselves compelled to overlook all practical considerations. The practice of phrase worship has a peculiar fascination for certain types of mind, and it has long been recognised that the Labour movement contains more than its fair proportion of jhe type. Very often the phrases make up in fine, rolling sound what they lack in sense, and, like some popular songs, have a long or short life, according to the patience of the public. Particular stress was laid in the Labour Party’s amendment to the Address-in-Reply on “that full measure of selfdetermination to gain which, for small nationalities, the statesmen of Great Britain declared the recent world war was fought.” This full measure of selfdetermination was, the amendment proposed, be resolutely advocated for Ireland, India, and Egypt by the delegate from New Zealand at the Imperial Conference. ' The war, of course, had nothing to do with- any of these: conn-

tries, so far as self-determination wa« concerned, but it had a great deal to do with a self-contained nation which was not part of ariy other nation or empire. The weakness of the Labour Party’s position consists in an inability to distinguish between things which are different. Belgium wished to retain her nationality, and her wishes ,in this respect were supported by a treaty to which Germany'had pledged herself. In pursuit of an ill-starred military adventure, Germany broke her pledged word and wantonly declared war on an inoffensive people. In preservation ■cf such nationality and for other reasons Great Britain went to war, aided by all lowers of freedom- and justice. So selfdetermination became a leading issue in the war. If we turn to Ireland we find a totally different set of circumstances. Ireland is an integral part of the British nation—a member of the Imperial family. The Labour Party apparently believes that it would be perfectly fair that one member of the family should decide on absolute separation for itself, wholly ignoring the wishes of the minority in Ireland or of the remaining members of the family. The majority might be a matter ,of ten or a thousand —there is really no substantial ground for believing that a majority exists for . separation.—and the minority might d£* bide to fight for its right to abide by v its ties of blood, but the sacred fetish of self-determination must be pursued. It does not appear to concern the Labour Party -if' self-determination should lead to civil .war, and actually in effect mean self-extermination, so long as the letter of the principle is With equal simplicity the party demands self-determination for India, for a people who never used the ballot until a few months ago, when a large proportion of electors were persuaded to abstain from voting on the ground that it was “sinful.” The plain fact is that self-determination in India would mean chaos and bloodshed, and that the only sane principle to apply to that country is contained in the declared British policy of continually increasing the measure of self-government as the Indian people become accustomed to it and show themselves capable of exercising it. Above all, though perhaps of minor importance in the eyes of some apostles of self-determination, the application of this' policy to India would mean the breaking up of the Empire. To deslrt India would be a pglicy of cowardice calculated to create such general confusion as might easily endanger the peace of the world. The British people have assumed responsibilities in India and Egypt, and though the burden is at times great, it must ho borne until in the fulness of time the peoples of those countries am ready themselves to t assume the resppnsibility of self-govern-ment. / It will be noted with interest that a leading anemher of the Labour Party proposed the motion at the Irish national concert on .St; Patrick’s night, condemning the . British Government’s ; policy in Ireland. While .the motion spoke only of securing “the freedom of small nations by allowing the Irish people to govern themselves according to their own wishes/’ Bishop Whyte, in supporting it, spoke of self-determina-tion as a new word expressing an old idea. We regret to say that, even if there were any man who can accurately say what Breland’s wishes are with regard to government, for the reason that various sections desire different systems,' Bishop Whyte’s speech was wholly deficient as a frank statement of the present deplorable position in Ireland. Self-determination, in the sense in which it is claimed, cannot be given to , Ireland without endangering the unity of Ireland and safety of England and Scotland and wales. The Bishop’s reference to the rebellion of 1916 waa unfortunate in this respect, for the reason that, while many Irishmen were fighting in France to preserve the ■world’s liberty, other Irishmen were conspiring with Germany to undermine the liberty of all British* people, including Irishmen themselves. It was said that Irishmen had thrown in their lot with the Sinn Fein, and had never looked back. To the unprejudiced observer Sinn Fein is Ireland’s will-o'-the-wisp, since to it is attributable the -policy of murder which is postponing the peaceful and equitable settlement of the Irish question. If responsible inen would call a truce to sophistry and eschew shibboleths, an immediate advance might be made towards a peaceful settlement in. Ireland, and if others would undertake the work of schooling the more backward peoples in the arts of government, some of the principles for which they profess to,stand would meet with more general fayour.-