The Daily News FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1930. EUROPEAN AMITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 August 1930, Page 8

The Daily News FRIDAY, AUGUST 29, 1930. EUROPEAN AMITY.

Some few weeks ago M. Briand, Prime Minister of France, issued a memorandum on closer unity between European Governments by means of an organisation with an assembly, a council and a secretariat of its own. Of the twenty-six countries invited by him to a European conference at Geneva in September seventeen objected to the plan, Great Britain, Germany, Austria and Italy being amongst that number. Eleven countries objected to the political proposals taking precedence of economic questions, and in particular stressed that any progress in the direction of economic union must be rigorously determined by the question of security, while Germany pressed the view that economic union depended upon certain political arrangements, but did not agree that it depended upon security. It is important to note that Germany in her reply outlined certain arrangements such as the revision of the status quo and equality in the matter of armaments —tha-i is to say, of disarmament. Undoubtedly M. Briand’s aim is praiseworthy, especially from a French viewpoint, but the methods proposed are such as to evoke a consensus of opinion that, so far from diminishing, they might actually tend to increase confusion and rivalry, not only in Europe but in the world at large. What M. Briand proposed to do was essentially to duplicate the functions of the League of Nations by creating a rival organisation instead of strengthening the one great tribunal, which was specially brought into being to promote and maintain not only the peace of the world but the highest welfare of the nations. It is quite possible that in reality M. Briand did not entertain any hope of his scheme finding favour, and it may be that it was put forward j more as a means for emphasising ! the need for strengthening the [ League of Nations and its Covenant than anything else. That France is obsessed with the importance of obtaining security from attack and invasion may in some measure account for her persistent efforts in that direction, but it is too much to expect that the need of France is to be the fulcrum of European policy. According to a cablegram from Paris, that appeared yesterday,, French election speeches in their references to foreign policy . arc notably quieter in their tone, but it seems that the Paris Press is making up for the quietude of the politicians. One journal warns the French people that the German demand for the reshaping of the map of Europe to Germany’s advantage cannot be achieved except by force, and argues that “those desiring a revision of the treaty desire war, but Germany at present is not ready to force the demand for revision; it may be ten or twelve years before the clash becomes imminent.” Arguments of this species demonstrate the slenderness of the thread of all schemes of unity in cases where the respective parties thereto are bent upon obtaining advantages for . themselves and curtailing those of others. There may be an element of genuine idealism, but the danger of [chasing ideals of this kind is that the result may exemplify how easily ideals melt away and give place to a sharpening of weapons of offence and defence against the outside world, thereby creating vastly greatei’ problems than those at present awaiting solution. Would the world be any better off if for the aggressively nationalistic State it substituted an aggressively nationalistic continent or group of States? Surely the only place for an oi'ganised group of States is in organic re-

]ation and subordination to the League of Nations. The amity of nations is not likely to be fostered by their being armed to the teeth, or by warnings to be prepared for war in the next decade. It has been wisely stated there are some things which M. Briand might have said, but did not, namely, that the basis of European union should be European disarmament or European free trade, either of which would be a real contribution to the cause of peace. He is, however, so enmeshed in the toils of security that he is prevented from breaking loose in order to exploit favourable avenues for promoting measures likely to advance the best interests of peace and goodwill among the nations.