The Daily News WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1928. A PERPETUAL PEACE.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 April 1928, Page 8

The Daily News WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1928. A PERPETUAL PEACE.

The proposal emanating from the United States for a pact to be entered into by the six Great Powers of the world, namely, America, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Britain, as well as other interested governments, for the purpose of abolishing warfare of every description, embodies an ideal which should appeal to all civilised nations. There can be no doubt that the. idea of a perpetual peace, which has hitherto been a dream of humanitarians, would, if translated into a definite international policy, solve many world problems, amongst which that of economics is not the least. It is generally recognised that an anti-war pact would be useless without the absolute safeguard provided for the compulsory settlement of all disputes and differences that may arise between the nations. There is, however, no valid reason why this anti-war movement should not be dovetailed into the League of Nations’ Covenant, not to supplant it, but to extend and strengthen in such a way as to bring it to a logical conclusion. If the United States is in real earnest in this matter, the government of that country should have no scruples in joining the League, the main object of. which is to carry out the principle involved in the American peace pact. It is impossible for a Great Power like the United States to take up and insist upon holding an isolated position in international affairs and expect the rest of the world to come into step with America’s movements. That is certainly not the way to secure perpetual peace or the amicable settlement of disputes between the nations. The essence of all arbitration and conciliation is adopting the principle of mutual concessions, so that it is obvious the United States must, in order to bring the anti-war agreement into the realm of practical politics, be prepared to give and take, which means the adaptation of the Monroe doctrine to world conditions of to-day. That the preamble of the proposed treaty is beyond all criticism is incontrovertible. It sets out that the six Great Powers are deeply sensible that their high office imposes a duty to promote the welfare of mankind, inspired by the desire to perpetuate peaceful relations and to prevent -war throughout the world, and are hopeful that other nations will join in the humane endeavour by adhering to a treaty to provide a condemnation of war as a solution to international controversies, and the pacific settlement of all disputes of whatever origin or nature. It can certainly be claimed that the objective set forth in this preamble is identical with Britain’s oft declared policy since the war. The question of national commitments should present no difficulties if the renunciation of war is accepted by the nations generally. One of the reasons why it is advisable to conjoin the American proposals with the League Covenant is co ensure the protection of minorities, a matter of considerable import, in consequence of its being a fruitful source of trouble, although with the proper provision for adjustments, such as can be provided by the League, there should exist no obstacles to pacific settlement. So long as human nature is given to assertiveness and disinclined to being tied down to pursue a definite line of conduct, so long will there have to exist penalties for breaches of agreements or laws. Hence the necessity for preventing hostilities on the part of any nation large or small—such as are provided for in the League Covenant. It was that provision which proved a stumbling block to America joinirj the League, but it is just as essential to-day as in the past. It will be for the United States to prove to the world that America is so much in earnest over the attainment of perpetual peace that she is prepared to

stretch her adopted principles in order that the desired goal may be reached. As to France, all her policy during many years past has been based on a network of alliances with individual States in order to obtain the utmost possible security against her hereditary enemy. If the American proposals are accepted all these commitments will be of no service, for the simple reason that the abolition of all war will do away with the need for seei.rity. The prospect of a warless world is certainly very pleasing. Instead of vast sums of money being wasted, and the energies of millions of men engaged in war services being diverted to the arts of peaceful production, a w era of progress i.nd prosperity would be opened up. Once the burden of war debts has bee ■ liseh; -ged and perpetual peace inaugurated there will be a changed world. Such a vision seems to be almost too good to be possible, yet it if one well worth striving for.