PASSING NOTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25848, 19 May 1945, Page 4

PASSING NOTES

Everyone who llstened-in to the salute to his Majesty the King from members of the services in all parts of the world must have felt deeply moved by that splendid tribute. Since then the British Parliament has also paid an eloquent tribute to the Royal Family, and, as usual, Mr Churchill’s speech was a model of that felicitous mode of expression whereby he confers dignity upon whatever he touches. Is there not something splendidly boyish about the exuberance of his intellect when he exclaims: We have the 'strongest Parliament In the world. We have the oldest, the most famous, the most honoured, the most secure and most serviceable monarchy In the world. Reading Mr Churchill’s great survey of the war and the downfall of Germany, one is prompted to ask whether it would not now be fitting for all parts of the Empire to broadcast a salute to Mr Churchill as its , great leader, by the genius of whose statesmanship and inspiring personality we have been led so far along the road to victory. What someone said of Voltaire is equally true of Mr Churchill:

He wielded language, the most human of man's tools, with a skill and power that moved his opponents to envy and friends to a delight that never tires. In the exquisite control of words one asks whether any writer (or speaker) in any age has surpassed him. Mr Churchill did not acquire this consummate skill without arduous labour, even though he may have been gifted by Nature. Did he not tell us in his biography of his early life how as a subaltern in India he spent some time every day in the study of the, great English authors who were masters of style? This was especially to his credit for he studied while his fellow-officers rested during the heat of the day. What Buckle says of Edmund Burke seems equally .true of Mr Churchill: All his knowledge was so digested and worked into his mind that it was ready on every occasion: not like the knowledge of ordinary politicians, broken and wasted in fragments, but blended into a complete whole, fused by a genius that gave life to the dullest pursuits. In his hands nothing was barren, but bore fruit in all direc-

tions. Who but Mr Churchill could have expressed with such superb skill and restraint what he had to say about the attitude of Eire and Mr de Valera towards the war? And how noble is this touching conclusion! I can only pray that In the years which I shall not see the shame will be forgotten and peace will endure, and the peoples of the British Isles will walk together in mutual compre-

hension and forgiveness. When we read these great speeches of the British Prime Minister we realise the element of truth in what Buffon said: Style is ffie only passport to posterity. It is not range of information, •. nor mastery of some little-known branch of science that will ensure immortality. It requires genius and true nobility of mind. The style, that is the very man himself.

Anyone who has visited San Francisco will recall one special feature of its climate. In the main it is a sunny place, but as each day wears on a sea fog rolls in through the Golden Gate and gradually envelops the city. This occurs either during certain months or perhaps all the year round. Has this sea fog by some strange alchemy been converted into a mental fog and created that hazy obscurity which is spreading over the proceedings of the World Security Conference now in session? It is true that Mr Eden tells us that the conference is going well—but going whither? He Himself has set out for London, either because he really believes the conference is near success or else he is merely hoping for the best. Mr Molotov has gone back to Moscow, perhaps because the conference excluded his Polish Government and admitted the Argentine Government, or else because he regards the debates as a waste of time. Even though one critic .predicted that the meeting would end by being called the “Fiasco Conference” it is imperative for the conference .to create the belief that agreement Is about to be reached on all points. Hence, for example, the headlines announce that on trusteeship of backward races and. strategic areas. “Britain and America have reached agreement.” But is this really so? For as we read on wo find that this agreement “has been referred to London and Washington for approval.” Even if London and Washington approve we learn next that “it will be necessary to consider the views of Russia and China ’’—and Russia, it is said, will be difficult. So where are we? Is it not idle to say agreement has been reached where so many consents are still necessary?

How the delegates of such Great Powers as Britain and America must envy our Mr Fraser! Does he have to consult any one or get approval for his proposals to the conference? Apparently not. Surely as a good democrat he should have told us before he went away what his views were. Surely Parliament should have been asked to endorse his proposals instead of giving him a blank cheque. At present he is said to be in the limelight as “ one of the foremost protagonists ” for giving small nations the right to be heard before being committed to war. This might be reasonable on one condition, namely, that any aggressor nation bent on war will tell us in ample time of her intentions and say to the Great Powers, “Please call together New Zealand, Liberia, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and all the other small States and find out after weeks of discussion whether they wish to join you, and then you can decide whether to defend yourselves when we attack.” But everyone knows that war may come without warning, as when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. If another war comes it will be still more sudden owing to rocket bombs and other terrors. Are the Great Powers to call together what the report calls “ a sort of World Parliament” to satisfy the conscience of New Zealand before they decide to resist aggression? If Mr Fraser wants to avoid all commitments, does he wish us to stay neutral like Eire or face Japan alone, relymg on our own strength?

Moreover, is it fair for Mr Fraser to suggest that New Zealand was not consulted before she agreed to take part in this war? He talks of our “ immediate, unhesitating decision to enter this war on receipt of a telegram advising us of Britain’s declaration of war.” Is this meant to imply that we were jockeyed into war without time for consideration? If so, it is an outrageous misstatement. For not only was our Parliament consulted but our Government had been kept fully advised day by day and month by month of the progress of events. Indeed, Mr Savage was so fully convinced that it was a just an 9 inevitable war that he declared, “Where Britain goes we go!” or something to that effect. Every Minister has proclaimed that we went, into the war willingly in the cause of liberty. What, then, does Mr Fraser mean when he says “ because our decision cost us many Jives, therefore in future wemust have the right to be heard before decisions are made that might involve us in.future sacrifices”? Does not this suggest most unfairly that we were not consulted before being committed to this war? By all means let us debate and discuss the issues if time allows.- But if war comes like a thunderbolt we must either fight together or fight alone, and if we fight alone our doom is sealed.

The following letter explains itself: Dear "Civls,”—l was pleased to get your explanation to my questions on money which puzzled me. I cannot expect more space, but your explanation and Rudyard Kipling’s are the same as in “The Gods of the Copybook Headings In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul. But though we had plenty of money there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said. “If you don’t work you die.’’

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled and their smoothtongued wizards withdrew. And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true That all is not Gold that Glitters and two and two make four, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped upsto explain , it once more. —Thanking you. Yours faithfully. A Correspondent. Civis.