A Better League of Nations

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20127, 21 April 1928, Page 13 (Supplement)

A Better League of Nations

Keeping the World from War

The British Navy and Peace

(BY SLR JOHN FOSTER FRASER)

rpilE whole world is talking about peace, and about three-parts of the world seems to be getting ready for another war. The greatest peace-boosting nation on earth is the United States, though it happens to be engaged in the only active war in progress, with the little Central American republic of Nicaragua, and whilst shouting on all civilization io outlaw war as the accursed thing proposes to build the biggest Navy that was ever on the seas, because it, wants to defend itself against Heaven knows who and because American battleships would be mighty useful in persuading other countries to behave themselves in accordance with United States interests and ideals. I do not remember any time when the nations wore thinking and acting at cross-purposes, more than just now. The truth is we arc- all nervous and suspicious. TELLING NATIONS OFF. The ordinary man may well ask: ‘‘What is the League of Nations doing?” Well, it is not a failure, as lots of people believe, and it is nothing like the success many of us would like. It has practically no power; but it provides a useful place whore differences may be debated in public assembly and agreements arrived at. It can, with more or less united voice, tell a misbehaving country exactly what is thought of it. If it is a small country, needing financial assistance, it sulks and is quiet for a time; if it is a powerful country, it can look at the League, put its thumb to its nose, and waggle its'fingers. We of Great Britain have made it clear we will not be bound by a decision of the League if out vital nationality is threatened. We take up that attitude because of the United States. A century hence American historians will be explaining away the opposition of their country, after the war. to the League of Nations, or, what is more likely, they will be claiming the credit of inventing the League of Nations. In truth we must recognize that if it had not been for Air Moodrow Wilson, war President of the United States, urging such a combination amongst the nations, so international disputes be settled by arbitration tribunals and not by the arbitrament of war, the League would probably not have come into existence. AMERICA’S “CANOE’ What we have got cause to complain about is that America, having been prime creator of the League,'suddenly decided to have nothing to do with it—except to interfere if her own interests were affected —because she was not going to have her destiny guided by a miscellaneous collection of inferior Europeans and dagoes sitting in Geneva. She would paddle her own canoe. And her paddling has created ‘‘some swish.” We know, partly as a consequence of the war, that America is the most prosperous country on earth —indeed, her prosperity is abounding. We on the European side of the Atlantic, who have been going through harsh times, are a little envious. But Americans feel that not only are they the richest but they are the greatest people, and the time has arrived for America to show lesser countries that is so. She is trying to create a Pan-Amcrican League, including all countries on the American continent, except Canada, so that as good brothers they should all be friendly. The Latin republics of Central and South America are not so keen because they’ve been told that Uncle Sam must be boss brother, and they are not impressed by the way Uncle Sam behaves when small fellows, like Nicaragua, for instance, will not do what the financial magnates of New York desire. What the United States desires is an arrangement whereby South American republics will buy more manufactured goods from the United States and less than they arc doing from European countries, like Britain. America does not need a huge Navy. Nobody is threatening her and no nation has the money to go to battle with her. But though she says she wants such a Navy for defence, we know the principal reason is that it will give a glow to all rea’ hundred-per-cent. Americans to have a bigger Navy than Britain has, and besides, as American civilization is the best—just as in the old days the Germans were sure their kultur was supreme—it will be a very excellent instrument in Americanizing and therefore improving mankind.

“INEVITABLE OR UNTHINKABLE. ” Not long ago a blustering American declared that war with England was “ inevitable, : * and we were all shocked. It is a stupid word, but no more stupid than when our own countrymen say that war with America is “unthinkable.” We know America is going to pursue a course which she believes is to her advantage. What we have to make clear is that Britain must follow a course which is essential to her own self-preservation. But, having taken up that attitude, there is nothing, or there ought to be nothing, save prejudice, to hinder our two countries not only being friendly out to act together so that peace on earth is secured. We British do not desire war—and yet there is a belief abroad that our desire fcr a strong Navy is because we want to lord it over small and defenceless peoples in distant parts. lam positive the heart of the American people is antagonistic to war, though they have a psychoolgy, made up of jagged contradictions, which is quite incomprehensible to other nations. There is a jingo section in the United States, but not very large. There is an imperialistic atmosphere which is general, partly with a view to material benefit, but mostly flavoured with sentimental morality. Americans want the world to be good and peaceful, but they have difficulty in understanding that any other people may be—well, animated by as much idealism as they are. They are sincere in seeking that all nations should outlaw war, that under no circumstances will there be resort to arms. Yet they see a “snag” when a European country says, “Yes, but we should be justified in going to war to resist invasion”—though, under provocation the Americans would be the first to defy an aggressor. The mentality of other people is often provoking. The time has passed when any good is done arguing that the United States does not need a big Navy in the same way Britain does. In time of war the United States could feed itself. Yet in time of war with us, unless we could get food supplies from various parts of the world—and we would need warships to prevent our merchant ships being sunk by the enemy—we could be starved to submission within a few weeks. That many Americans see the situations of our two countries are entirely different Ido not doubt. But the main attitude amonst the mass of genial peace-loving Americans is rather, “Well, if we want a Navy as big as Johnnie Bull’s and can pay for it, who’s going to say we shall not have it?’ 1 I forsee, however, t«hat the Americans, an emotional people, easily swayed, will before long be showing the world —as we have seen indications within the past few weeks—that they would rather be moral leaders than accentuate the idea they want to be powerful in a militaristic way. I believe her efforts to set up an American Continent League of Nations, her advocacy to rope into one pen, as it were, all nations who are willing to outlaw war, can be taken as evidence the time is approaching when, with tact, America could be invited to join the League of Nations, rot as it is at present constituted but as it could be reconstituted—and that she would be willing. WE DON’T WANT WAR. All the ententes and combinations and treaties and alliances now being negotiated between nations indicate there is bad blood somewhere, though the customary allegation of all is that these agreements are for defence, not defiance. It should not be beyond the skill of statesmen, knowing the folly of war, to revise the covenant of the League and give it the authority of power which it now lacks. That the abolition of all arms throughout the world is a possibility I cannot yet contemplate. But the proposal that “submarines” should be abolished is a sign. If agreed to, it will be followed by a universal prohibition of the use of deadly gases in war. Then assuredly there would be agreement that civilian towns shall not be bombed from the air. The drift of public sentiment is all along these lines. It is unnecessary to declare the British people hate war. We should make it plain to the world again—we have already done so by our reductions in armaments—that w’O have willingness to co-operate with any or all to prevent another catastrophe. Meanwhile, whilst other nations must do as they think well, we shall do the same and keep a Navy of a strength, not to menace any other land, but to ensure that if unhappy strife again breaks forth our civilian population shall not be starved to death 6 '. That is the main purpose of the British Navy.