The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1932. THE TASK OF THE LEAGUE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19372, 22 December 1932, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1932. THE TASK OF THE LEAGUE.

It is generally admitted that the real difficulty facing the League of Nations in its attitude to the three big issues—the Far Eastern conflict, disarmament, and the economic crisis—is a diminution of the nations of the will to peace. This is not the opinion of reckless critics, but the considered conclusion of Viscount Cecil, who is perhaps the most outstanding British leader who consistently enunciates the cause of world peace before the assembled nations at Geneva. The noble lord certainly strongly emphasised the point of view that the shortcomings of the League were due to the failure of the Governments members of the League to live up to their obligations. It was emphatically insisted, however, that much of the pessimism concerning the League was dictated by a desire that the League should come to an end. “There were lunatics in every country,” declared Viscount Cecil, “who really desire that the attempt to organise peace should fail. There were, however, apart from such critics, sober and well-intentioned observers who were undoubtedly anxious and uneasy at the present state of affairs. It was said that the League of Nations extravagantly did nothing. In Viscount Cecil's view the charge of extravagance had been pressed beyond all reason and justice. He had previously pointed out that the cost of a single battleship invested at 5 per cent, would pay the British contribution to the League very nearly three times over. That did not necessarily mean that- the League was not spending more then than it need, and that there might not be economies which would usefully be made without interfering with its essential efficiency, and he was glad that a searching examination into the expenditure of the League was about to be made. Lord Cecil added: The charge of extravagance was a minor charge. The main charge was that of inefficiency. No one could say that the League had not done a great deal of very valuable work. It was felt, however, that, in certain great issues and in consideration of certain important international questions, the League had proved unable to achieve success. Viscount Cecil emphasised that this charge was not primarily a charge against the institution of the League, but against its Members. Nothing had occurred to throw doubt upon the wisdom of the conception of the League or the effectiveness of its machinery. The confidence felt in the machinery of the League was shown by the decision of Turkey to enter the League and the decision of the Argentine to renew her co-operation with the Assembly. Notwithstanding vigorous criticism of the League, it ought to be pointed out that members themselves have the future of the peacemaking potentialities of the Assembly at Geneva in their own hands. The real trouble, as Viscount Cecil has taken some pains to point out, is that the many members of the League have not in fact based their policies upon a complete acceptance of the principles of the Covenant. “These observations,” Viscount Cecil said, “apply, too, to the dispute between China and Japan in the Far East.” If both parties had fully applied the principles of the Covenant there would have been no need to deplore the longcontinued dispute which had so seriously embittered their relations. Strangely enough, in discussing both the- dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay and the Sino-Japanese clash, Viscount Cecil significantly refrained from passing comment on the sins of the violators of the letter and spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and several other pacts, involving solemn undertakings to outlaw’ war as an instrument of national policy. It is plain, of course, as Viscount Cecil has taken the trouble to point out, that no machinery for peace can work unless there is a genuine will to peace. The governments of the world which reflect popular demands ought to realise that the time has come for them to consider in all seriousness whether they can not bring their policies more closely into accord with the principles of the Covenant. There is one great test of sincerity in the will to peace. Are the nations really willing to disarm? No one doubts that disarmament is possible, and the question asked by the common man is whether the Governments, and especially the Governments with great military and naval forces, actual or potential, are really in earnest. There is no escaping that question. If it is answered in the affirmative and a Disarmament Treaty can be framed, the whole international atmosphere will change as by magic. The nations will then have made a definite choice for peace and not for war. If the answer, however, is in the negative, there will inevitably be a reversion to pre-war conditions, since a negative answer implies that the nations are not prepared to abandon war. Every observer of the march of international events realises, of course, as Viscount Cecil has pointed out, that the choice between these two alternatives must be faced by the statesmen who periodically assemble at Geneva, and who really hold in their hands the future of civilisation, and the future happiness of the world.