The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 1930. THE CLEARER VIEW

Southland Times, Issue 21109, 14 June 1930, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JUNE 14, 1930. THE CLEARER VIEW

Such questions as the value and cost of the New Zealand system of military defence should not intrude upon a discussion of the League of Nations’ aims, and so far as the,League of Nations Union is concerned, it seems that such questions as “compulsory’” or “voluntary” defence systems are outside its sphere of useful activity. Talk of the undesirability of war does not mean that one is a pacifist in the sense that the immediate abolition of armed forces is deemed advisable, and those who plunge the Union into the turmoil of local politics by passing resolutions’ dealing with the type of defence system are really placing obstacles in the way of the proper conduct of the Union’s campaign on behalf of the League. If adherence to the League demands support to the immediate abolition of defence forces, such terms as “compulsory” or “voluntary” should have no standing in Union discussions as alternatives, and it seems to us that the Otago and Southland branches at the recent conference were keener than the other branches in seeing that the elimination of these questions really clarifies the position. A glance at the leaders of the League of Nations Union movement will show that they include many people who are not ready to abolish armed defence forces at this stage, although they fervently believe in the objects of the League and hope to see the day when it will make wars impossible and military forces unnecessary. Britain, who has shown in many ways that she is an ardent supporter of the League of Nations, maintains her armed forces, and so do most of the other Powers, and they’ do not see in the retention of armies, navies and air forces any inconsistency with their adherence to the League.. Mr W. Macalister, in his efforts to keep the Union strictly to its work of educating the public in the aims and obtects of the League of Nations, does not stand for the use of military force as a means of settling international disputes, he does not favour war; but he does decline to be drawn into side issues which will obstruct the work of the Union by deflecting its energies from the purpose for which it exists, and by raising against it antagonisms which should be avoided. It seems to us that the soundness of the attitude taken up by the southern branches of the League of Nations Union was proved by the speeches delivered at the conference by those who supported the resolution declaring against compulsory military training in New Zealand. These speeches ranged from a condemnation of war to attacks on the cost of compulsory military training, from the declaration that failure to trust the League would make war inevitable to the declaration that the territorial system had had its

day and was now futile. What would the conference have said if certain delegates had launched themselves into a discussion of the merits of various types of military training, and of the best means of cutting down the cost of the defence system ? Such a discussion could have been justified by the speeches delivered at the conference, but they would have taken the delegates far away from the real purpose of the League of Nations Union —the interpretation of the League to the people, and the strengthening of it through the exposition of its achievements and purpose. The abolition of war is the League’s purpose; it is not the function of the Union. In this descrimination the attitude of the southern branches can be appreciated, and the soundness of their advice to the conference can be seen.