INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION'

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22905, 12 June 1936, Page 4

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION'

I'O THE EUITOU Sir— Supernatural aid, together with the supervision of all worthwhile fortitied strategic points throughout the world by Great Britain appears to be the basis of universal peace, according to Mr Steel. Seeing that the Divine side receives such strong emphasis, surely it« initiative can be exerted just as powerfully through the League of Nations as through Great Britain. Really, 1 see no convincing reason why Mr Steel should be alarmed about my proposals, unless Great Britain alone provides an open channel for Divine initiative. In lieu of Mr Steel’s ideaa.,l have substituted the League of rsations, because the League is at present the most effective medium in the promotion of world peace. Could the League be transformed into a great spiritual agency permeated with the spirit of the Prince of Peace, then, I believe, it would fulfil the purpose, for which it was created far more efficiently than has been the case hitherto. The task of providing the spiritual impetus required falls to the Church. But the League of Nations as now constituted without the full influence of the Church behind it, working as it can in the interests of international cooperation, will save more life-blood for our Empire within a decade than our scattered fortifications are able to do in a generation. The League of Nations within 15 years of history settled over 30 cases by arbitration, and saved the world from at least seven wars. Whatever may be the ultimate result of the Struggle between China and Japan, the world has cause to be thankful for the League of Nations. One fact stand*) out clearly: if the League had not been in existence the Far East would certainly have been ablaze with war long ago, and probably every great Power would be involved. If there were no League what would have been the position uow? Almost certainly hopeless. Want wars have our chief fortifications prevented? I know they created wars and shed much of our life-blood. Even though the whole objective of the League in regard to Abyssinia was not realised, yet this does not render it futile as an instrument of world peace. The recent President of the League (Dr Benes), on adjourning the Assembly in October last, indicated that the League was entering on a new period of history and becoming a new moral, political, and even material force. This is a just estimation of the position of the League as against the unjust assertion that it has failed. Allow the League the opportunity of removing the causes of war, then hostilities between nations will be prevented. The main causes are self-centred nationalism, excessive armaments, competition for markets, and injustice. The last of these includes economic factors, such as inequality of access to raw materials,klack of appropriate outlets for over-crowded populations, the barriers against a more equal distribution of economic resources, and inequality of opportunity as between different races. It seems to me that countries are not prepared to forsake the pursuance of selfcentred national policies in order to rectify any forms of injustice created as a consequence.

Let the League deal with the germs ol war and s° on there will'be no seeds to germinate war. Great Britain did make a sincere effort to reduce armaments, but how could its policy prove effective without taking the enormous profits out of war? Mr Lloyd George intimated just recently that munition factories were " trading concerns for profit." A more extensive policy in the matter of disarmament is indispensable. Rearmament is not the most effective manner of meeting the critical events on the Continent referred to by Mr Eden. With this conclusion Mr Steel both seems to agree and disagree. If he disagrees as his closing paragraph asserts, then what is the real significance of his introduction of Great Britain's rearmament? It is evident that Mr Steel is not thoroughly acquainted with opinions in the Home Country, otherwise he would not have asserted that " it is the unanimous opinion of all parties in Home politics that Brita ! n will part with no territory whatever over which the Union Jack now flies." The Times parliamentary correspondent, writing in August of

last year, said: "The colonial problem will be the next great question to be faced in Europe. It lies at the bottom of the Italian adveLture, and it may be found at the head of the next list of German demands. Here, as in England, there are thoughtful people who thinkthat revision of the distribution of colonies is inevitable sooner or later, and that the sooner the fact is frankly faced the easier and less costly that revision will be." I presume that " thoughtful people" can belong even to political parties. If Mr Steel were familiar with Mr George Lansbury's views, then he would not have claimed unanimity of opinion against me. Ido not in any way impugn' the sincerity of Mr Steel's convictions, but I feel that there is strong reason for questioning his implications. At present I am convinced that no permanent basis for peace can be secured unless all nations are prepared to foster justice irrespective of the personal and national sacrifices involved. The League of Nations, as "a small instrument of the Kingdom of God," is the most efficient medium for making the necessary adjustments.—l am, etc., June 11. E. P. Aderman.