LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3711, 28 April 1925, Page 28

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

“IS WAR INEVITABLE?” A meeting under the auspices of the local branch of the League of Nations Union was held on Saturday evening in (he Empire Theatre to hear addresses appropriate to Anzac Pay by Profess:r Fisher, Miss M. H. M. King, and Mr P, Noilson. The announced subject was “Is War Inevitable? The Alternative.” The chair was occupied by Mr Fred. Jones, and there was a fairly numerous attend anee. Professor A. G. B Fisher, Professor of Economics at the Otago University, said that in some respects we had moved a long way from the high ideals and noble purposes that had characterised the thought and action of the best minds in tho early days of the war. They were then engaged in a war to end a war; that was fundamentally the purpose that justified the struggle. Discussion had centred for the most part round the problem of the settlement of disputes and the enforce ment of sanctions against outsiders or against recalcitrant members of the league. Such problems were important, but in the long run it might be preferable to pay more attention to tlie constructive side of the league’s work rather than its preventive side. In the State there existed a bench of judges and a police force to which there was no parallel outside the State, and by a reference to which disputes could be settled. The court of law and the policeman would not be very effective unless the rules to be enforced were fairly clearly defined. They were merely the machinery of the State, and without power to drive the machinery it would be idle or ineffective. It was the comparative absence of any Such rules of law in international relations that made it so difficult to persuade nations to submit, their disputes lo arbitration. They did not know—no one knew—the principles that might influence the minds of the arbitrators, and it was not surprising that they had been unwilling to bind themselves beforehand. The courts of justice did not develop these principles,- but existed to interpret the law. In quite a variety of special departments and communities the League of Nations was already making steady if cautious progress, and reducing to order the chaos that still characterised human relations outside the boundaries of the State. The w T hole of the departments was not dramatic or spectacular and afforded few opportunities for effective oratory. But he was convinced that we had here the means of performing perhaps the most important function of the league: first by gradually eliminating, or at least introducing, order into the causes of disputes, and second by providing opportunities for the development of a technique of internal administration which was quite essential if international relations were to be made in any degree civilised. It was neither necessary nor desirable to elaborate the possibilities Jn each department in detail. The mandatory system was usually defended, be cause it made it possible, however imperfectly, to safeguard the interests of native populations and to protect them from exploitation. He did not wish to minimise the importance of that, but be suggested that the real importance of the mandatory system lay in the opportunity it provided for working out an internal code regulating colonial government and colonial relations. Professor Fisher went on at considerable length to refer to the work of the league, and continuing said the present organisation of the foreign offices of Europe had been subjected from time, to time to severe and more or less justified criticism, but even were they to be thoroughly democratised and reformed it would be much more important to attack the problem from the other end. What was needed was to squeeze out the elements of poison which now provided the materia! for diplomatic correspondence. If tlie work of the league were encouraged they might hope for the time when most of the subjects which were now considered suitable for treatment only through the ordinary diplomatic channels might be discussed quite outside the conventional foreign office methods. lie believed that the league could develop still further along the lines indicated, and he declined to believe that war was inevitable. Whether such development would take place would depend on the degree of intelligent sup port it received from the people throughout the world.—(Loud applause.) Miss Phyllis West contributed a song which was warmly applauded. Miss King said tho question was ono very apposite to the occasion. Had they really considered the number of lives laid down in war ? Now Zealand alone lost something like 18,000. and it was a small country and a people little in number. And 18,000 of the flower of our manhood had been lost in that war. Could they come there and consider that it was inevitable that the affairs of mankind demanded such a sacrifice of them again? The object of tho war had been to end war, and wo wore still asking ourselves, “Is War Inevitable?” Why? Because among us some were ignorant, gome a good deal prejudiced, and some doubters, and of litflo faith. Consider first the meaning of the word “inevitable.” A thing was inevitable because it could not be avoided. One thing was inevitable, and that was

that if we continued to conduct our affairs as we had done in the past we would have war. Had we not learned our lesson yet? A thing was inevitable when we set a cause in motion, and were we going to set the same cause in motion again or were we going to bring into action a new set of causes? Proceedings Miss King said the humanitarian work of the league was one of the most important branches of the league’s constructive work. She then went on to speak of other activities of the league such as attempting to bring about an improvement in the sanitary conditions of countries and thereby minimise the risk of world wide disease, the rescue pf homeless refugees, etc. She expressed the opinion that too many people did not think at all, or if they did it was casually; and compared the cost of the existence of the league with the cost of war. She did not believe it cost the price of a battleship. Mr Neilson said that if a thing were traced back to ite cause it could be remedied. Effects had their causes, and that was what they were trying to explain. He believed that war was produced as a result of men’s love of profit, the ownership of land, machinery production, everything used in production and the things essential to life. So long as these things were privately owned for private profits war would he inevitable. He was satisfied that when they could get the truth fairlv and squarely before the people they would help the league. Mr Neilson then proceeded to quoto figures at great length in order to show the enormous cost of war. Ho also quoted from speeches mado by notable men. A hearty vote of thanks was passed to the speakers and vocalist, and tho proceedings closed with the singing of the National Anthem.