The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1938 CLOSING THE FRONT AGAINST AGGRESSION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 20982, 10 March 1938, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1938 CLOSING THE FRONT AGAINST AGGRESSION

At a moment when there is so much discussion raging round hints of tariff reprisals and threats of embargoes, it is interesting to mention that some of the best informed observers say it is plain to them that the march of world events indicates a growing sense of responsibilities for world law and this is developing where an unrealistic isolationism not long ago flourished. This reference manifestly applies to the Anglo-American trade talks. But their remains a demand that the responsibility be shared by the great financial and commercial interests, whose profits in the past have not always allowed the purest and highest concepts of patriotism to guide their policies; indeed, it is regarded as probable that Senator Hull’s plan for economic appeasement may yet outstrip the disaster-bent course of national self-sufficiency, in which Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia and Japan’s invasion of China are only early milestones. On the other hand it may be necessary for those countries with democratic ideals, respect of treaties, and hope for a world system of ordered security to stand together against attempts to exercise might before right can prevail. Manifestly this idea is behind Mr Cordell Hull’s plans to counter national sufficiency and Mr Chamberlain's determination that Great Britain must be strong; indeed, the Prime Minister’s statement of Britain’s policy in relation to rearmament and the preservation of world peace, suggests the purpose behind the desire for strength. It is perhaps well to bear in mind that of the combination of nations now seeming to threaten world order, not one has in itself the financial and national resources to prepare for a victorious war against countries classified as the “Haves” Powers. It is nevertheless a somewhat tragic outcome of existing international relationships that there are interests that are continuing to supply aggressor nations with resources for war purposes, while their own countries are arming themselves against the outcome of the campaigns being waged by totalitarian powers. It is generally agreed that trade and economic aids must be exchanged in an interdependent world; indeed, by such exchange of mutual helpfulness, peace may be cemented. But the conclusion is steadily being forced on democratic peoples, who are opposed to nations living in anarchy, that there is a point at which the dual policy of preparing to fight if need be, and at the same time equipping the potential enemy for the fray, becomes inconsistent with the peaceable aims which at other times it serves. The problem for the leaders of nations is to decide at what point economic resistance of aggression should begin. That point would seem to have arrived, when the increasing strength of certain interests or ideologies begins to drive all other interests and ideologies to arm themselves as if for battle. That moment seems to have arrived. Hence, when governments are talking battleships and air forces, tiie realisation of the menace to civilisation reposing in the threats of war should compel democratic peoples to demand the use of those more potent and less sanguinary weapons that might be marshalled to enforce peace with a minimum of warlike method.