THE Wairarapa Age FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1934. HOW TO PREVENT WAR.

Wairarapa Age, 23 February 1934, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1934. HOW TO PREVENT WAR.

On some grounds the task of trying to prevent the outbreak of war on a disastrous scale might be regarded as hopeless. Apart from the critical tension that obtains in the Far East and the actual hostilities that presumably are under way again in the Gran Chaco, the state of Europe is becoming progressively more explosive. With each new step in the discussion of disarmament, the whole process becomes more farcical. The world will not be made safe by allowing German disputants to elaborate endless arguments in favour of the rearmament of Germany or French disputants to extend indefinitely the thesis that France must not be asked to part with a single item of fighting strength. On the other hand there is a public opinion In all countries, even in France and Germany, which demands peace. The real task of those who are working honestly for world peace is to mobilise this public opinion and make it effective. A thoroughly practical proposal to this end, and one on which attention should be concentrated throughout the English-speaking world, was made recently by Mr. -Sisley Huddleston in an article in the "Christian Science Monitor.” The proposal is:— That Great Britain and the United States should here and now make a joint declaration to the effect that in the event of war they would refuse supplies of any kind, commodities or munitions or credits to all belligerents. The idea of an Anglo-American economic boycott of all belligerents is not altogether new, but it is the only plan that seems to offer an assured means of making an end of the weary flow of ineffective or disingenuous talk on the subject of disarmament that is going on at Geneva and elsewhere. Mr. Huddleston says that his proposal has been endorsed with enthusiastic cheers by many audiences In the United States and he believes it would find equal favour in G,reat Britain. On its merits, the proposal plainly deserves to be supported whole-heartedly in every English-speaking country. That the proposed declaration would be splendidly effective is hardly in doubt. There are few countries which would venture to go to war if they knew that this meant being boycotted economically by Britain and the United States. _ At the same time, no new obligation of an embarrassing kind would be incurred by the Powers making the declaration. Under the Kellogg Fact, Britain and the United States in common with many other countries, including those which have most distinguished themselves in reducing the discussion of disarmament to rags and tatters, have expressly outlawed war. the declaration would not only go far to preserve peace, but probably would cut at a stroke through the multitude ot hindrances now raised to progress in disarmament. An all-i m p O rtant point is made and emphasised by Mr. Huddleston in the statement that there must be no interminable and inconclusive talk about aggressor and victim ot aggression.

All belligerents, he says, must be included in this embargo. To begin to discriminate is to open the door wide. .. . The c hj e f p o i n j j a no j which country is a little more right or a little more wrong than the other, but how they can be prevented from fighting, or from continuing to (fight. This simple and effective peace plan should win such approbation and support throughout the English-speaking countries that statesmen will be compelled to put it into operation. The declaration proposed involves neither aggression nor intervention in the affairs of other countries. It may be expected, however, to do very much more Ito establish and safeguard world peace than any amount of wearying talk about aggressive and non-aggressive armaments.