Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1939. ROOSEVELT’S APPEAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19915, 18 April 1939, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1939. ROOSEVELT’S APPEAL

The President of the United States has again focussed the spotlight oi world attention upon himself by a dramatic intervention in European affairs. His action in appealing direct to the two dictators has captured the imagination and met with a

ready and sympathetic response in every country except those where it really matters. This latter fact is the tragedy of the whole situation and serves to demonstrate the futility of any appeal to reason so far as Germany and Italy are concerned. If the two dictatorships were open to reason there would be no need to appeal to them; on the other hand, since their conduct is never governed by reason appeals are wasted. It is possible, indeed, that they do more harm than good, because any habitual malefactor is apt to be incensed and annoyed by an attempt to convert him, more particularly if he is approached in a spirit of superior virtue. It might be argued that Mr. Roosevelt’s appeal offers Germany and Italy a way of escape from their dilemma, but they have demonstrated quite clearly that they are in no mood for penitence or conciliation and to even suggest such a thing is calculated to make them more recalcitrant than ever. Certainly it is difficult to find any solid justification for the enthusiasm which the American appeal seems to have evoked.

Mr. Roosevelt seeks a guarantee from Germany and Italy that certain enumerated States shall be immune from attack for a minimum period of 10 years. If this proposal is accepted, he then suggests a world conference to discuss political and economic problems with the object of restoring the trade and commerce of the world to its normal routine. On the face of it, the President’s programme is eminently practical and desirable, but the world to-day is not dealing with practicalities or desirabilities, but with the absence of them in certain quarters. Supposing, for sake of argument, that Germany and Italy, contrary to all expectations, give the guarantees that Mr. Roosevelt has suggested. Will the world then be any further ahead, or any more secure? Botli Germany and Italy are

already signatories to a general pact of non-aggression and individually have given repeated pledges to preserve the status quo and protect the territorial integrity of their neighbours. • In their view, however, these pledges have not been regarded as binding, but only as a means for allaying suspicion and furthering their ulterior ends. In the light of past experience, therefore, what faith would attach to any new pledge, even if Mr. Roosevelt, were able to extract one?

Then comes the suggestion of another world conference which, in German eyes at least, might, almost be regarded as an insult. Most of her present grievances arise from a world conference that was held at Versailles, and other conferences since that date have not only resulted in failure but have served, also, to exacerbate the feelings of aggrieved nations. Italy,

too, has spurned the conference table, and he would be an optimist, indeed, who would suggest that the present time and the existing atmosphere are appropriate for an attempt to induce her to return. If, therefore, the facts are faced, as they should be, it must be admitted that even if Mr. Roosevelt achieved his object and secured pledges of nonaggression from Germany and Italy no one would place the slightest reliance in them; while if the proposal for a world conference were accepted it would be doomed to failure before it started. Despite these regrettable conclusions, however, it cannot be said Mr. Roosevelt’s step will produce entirely negative results. If his appeal does nothing more it will serve still further to awaken world opinion against the dictatorships and to demonstrate that they are in the wrong. More than that, it gives still another indication of the hardening of the American attitude in support of the democracies and of peace.

For all practical purposes, however, Mr. Roosevelt’s action has its usual fault of containing too much of words and too little of deeds. Once again, the powerful United States gives the appearance of taking the initiative but it commits itself to nothing. Had the President wanted to make a real contribution to the peace of the world he had only to follow the example recently set in Europe. Had he been prepared, in one short sentence, to subscribe to the guarantees given by Britain and France to Poland, Greece, and Rumania he would have done more to restrain aggression than if he sent a weekly message to Hitler and Mussolini, for the language of force is the only language recognised by the dictators. The same considerations apply to the proposed conference to restore international trade. If America is sincere, she has, the remedy largely in her own hands. It was she who set the lead in the drive for economic self-sufficiency by closing her doors to foreign trade. Let her reverse the process and she could accomplish more in the direction of a trade revival than could be achieved by weekly meetings of nations who would never do more than agree to disagree. To pin any faith on Mr. Roosevelt’s new appeal would be to build on false hopes, but there is some consolation in the bare knowledge that the United States is interesting itself more and more in the problems of Europe.