Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, NOV, 2, 1933. BRITAIN’S PEACE POLICY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18235, 2 November 1933, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, NOV, 2, 1933. BRITAIN’S PEACE POLICY

It is :i remarkable thing that Great Britain, admittedly having done more, both by preempt and practice, than any other country) to bring about peace and disarmament-, and being given world-wide credit for her efforts in this direction, should be acrimoniously criticised by some of her own politicians for not having rendered herself even more impotent than she already is. It is difficult to understand how the attacks of recent weeks can be justilied by the known circumstances, for it is an indisputable fact that Britain, and, indeed, the whole Empire, have reduced their armaments to a greater extent than any other leading power, and, in doing so. have weakened themselves in such a manner as actually to prejudice tho maintenance of peace. Even those who are so ready to condemn such moderate defensive measures as Great Britain lias taken do not for one moment suggest that she has any belligerent intentions herself; she has not the slightest desire for war, and nothing to gain from it. There are, however, two ways in which it would he possible for her to become embroiled, against her will, in any future struggle, firstly, as in 191-1, through being called upon to honor binding obligations which have been entered into, and, secondly, through having to defend herself, or some part of her Empire, against the aggression of another Bower. Any menace of war which might exist has not been created by, or contributed to in any way, by Great Britain. On the contrary, slie has done all that is humanly possible to avert it. As Mr. Baldwin remarked only this week: “The whole country, irrespective of party, is solidly unified in favor of peace and disarmament by international agreement. " Moreover, Britain has not waited for an agreement to bo reached, but has set an example to the world. It is not her fault that the lead she has given has not been followed; but it is her fault that the Empire to-day, most greatly in need of protection, is more defenceless than at anv time since before the war, while other nations, with doubtful intentions, to say the best of them, are continually increasing their armaments. The one way in which Britain is contributing to the possibility of war is by wantonly leaving herself and her possessions open to attack by an ambitious enemy, and it is for this reason that, in the' best interests of pence itself, she should take stock of her position. So long as Britain is well prepared, there will be no war of any consequence in any part of the world. The Great War was precipitated by Germany because it was believed that Britain was not ready for it; had the warnings of Lord Roberts and others prior to 1914 been heeded and reasonable defence measures been taken it is extremely doubtful whether Germany would have taken the stop she did. The position to-day, in many respects, is similar. If Ihe, rabid pacifists ol England are allowed to have their way the relative strength of other countries and the weakness of England will be a direct, invitation to war. Can those who so readily condemn preparedness explain how war would be avoided were England to be invailed ? It is all very well to sa.v that no government anywhere has warlike

intentions; the snmo thing was said by the same school of thought twenty years ago, but war came nevertheless, and so soon as sonic other nation believes —as Germany believed in 1014 —that she is invincible, war will come again. There are two alternatives l to that. war. One is for the peace-loving nations of -Hie world to be strong enough to.prevent it, and the other is for all countries to disarm. For many years now Great Britain, above all others, has been striving to follow the latter course. 81ie has worked unceasingly and made innumerable compromises to try and secure the success of the Disarmament Conference, and it is her fault least of all that the endeavor failed. No other country has more whole-heartedly supported the League of Nations in all its

efforts for peace, and the League today, though, it has not yet failed, lias been greatly weakened by the defection of important and influential members. What more can Britain be exiH'ctcd to do in the direction of con-,-iliulion unit mediation': She is left, tlion, the other alternative of making herself so strong that she will be in a position to enforce peace, and tlie question arises as to whether it would not be wiser for her, in conjunction with other Powers, to take action in this direction now, before other nations are in a better position to resist whatever pressure might be brought to bear. It is seemingly impossible to obtain disarmament by agreement; why not secure it by force 1 ’ 11. is unthinkable that one or .two countries should be allowed 1o keep the, whole, world in a perpetual state of suspense, and almost any slops would be justilied it they would result in creating that, sense of security that is so vital to economic, progress. Those who persistently demand that there shall be no more war, and at the same time insist that Britain should still further disarm, would do well to consider the impossi Uility of an unarmed nation maintain in*j- peace in the midst of armed and bellicose neighbors.