WAR, PEACE AND PROSPECT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 419, 10 November 1930, Page 8

WAR, PEACE AND PROSPECT

WORLD COMPLEX REVIEWED MR. HUGH C. JENKINS AND VEN. ARCHDEACON CREEDMEREDITH ANALYSE SITUATION ‘‘The League of Nations is perhaps the only good thing that came out of the .war,’’ remarked liis Worship the Mayor (Mr W. J. Rogers) who presied over the meeting at the Opera House last night, when he took the chair at a meeting of the League of Nations Union (Wanganui branch). The principal speakers of the evening were Mr Hugh C. Jenkins and the Ven. R. Creed-Meredith, Archdeacon of Waitotara. The Hon. W. A. Veitch was also present and addressed the meeting briefly.

To-night we are met together, people of all classes and all creeds, and we are inspired by a common hope and a common inspiration, said Air Hugh C. Jenkins. We desire that by God’s aid peace shall prevail upon the earth. We hope that this desire shall be granted and w.c aspire to make the realisation of that hope a permanent one. War. War is a tragedy. Show me the man who believes in war and I will show you a man who cannot read history. War destroys culture and the whole purpose of life is the development of culture. That, I thjjik, is the way we moderns express what the Presbyterian catechism puts more tersely when it proclaims that ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God.” Can anyone conceive that God'is glorified by war Take the last great war! What did it cost the world? In expenditure alone it cost over £56,000, millions. 12,990,570 combatants were killed. Half the national wealth of the combatant nations went up in smoke. Can this be the glorification of God. Greater damage still has been done to those hidden springs which hold a community together for the purposes of mutual aid. Warfare is a conflict of physical forces and men turn to physical power and are apt to glorify it. War saps the moral reserves of a people, diminishes its spirituality, damages. if it does not destroy, its culture. After every great war the standard of human conduct declines. This is the greatest destruction of all. Peace. But it is sometimes argued that Peace docs not bring out those manly and virile qualities of bravery, of physical endurance, of discipline and of individual sacrifice which war demands. Let us meet this: To which races do the advocates of warfare point as exampletes of the deteriorating influences of peace. They point always and over to savages immediately after they arc brought into contact with civilisation. This provides no proof, however, for the savage is a savage because he has not progressed beyond physical existence, whereas the problems which confront ’he individual in any civilised community give hirn all the urge for strivng that he needs. Do we not hear the queston often asked: “Is not the strain of civilisation becoming too l great?’’ The very asking of that question proves the existence of the urge to effort which some people see provided only bv warfare.

Why do Wars Occur? Seeing then that peace is so desirable and that warfare is so disastrous, why do wars occur? Surely the world should have found out the fraud of warfare by now and decided to abandon warfare! The logic of this question is sound and it is worth noticing that after every Great War the futility of it has been recognised and a move to preserve peace has been initiated. George von Podiebrad, in 1462, .sought to unify the Christian’ nations in one parliament, and to create an international militia to defend against any disturber of European peace. A century later Henri IV. conceived a similar plan in Paris. Hugo Grotius. the father of International Law. moved in that direction in the seventeenth century. The Frenchman Emeric de Lacroix, proposed a permanent international congress having its scat at Venice. Then the Abbe St. Pierre demanded a congress of States and the reduction of armed forces in every country to 6000 men and punitive expeditions against recalcitrants. Turgot, in France, Licbnitz in Germany, and Jeremy Bentham, in England, formulated like plans. The Holy Alliance was fashioned in Paris in 1815 to establish “eternal peace. ’’ Tn 1543 the first peace conference met in London. The leading spirits of many nations were captivated by the new idea. Peel. Cobden, Disraeli, Victor Hugo. Garibaldi. Napoleon ID., were moved by it. The late Czar of "Russia initiated the Hague Peace Conferences, the third of which was to have been held in the summer of 1915. Then, however, ten thousand cannons were speaking. Whv? We mav well 'ask! The Holy Alliance and the Monroe Doctrine I would like to suggest a line of thought to you. Y’ou will remember that the Holy Alliance contemplated intervention on behalf of Spain to restore her recently rebelled colonies in South America, and that the British Minister, Air Canning, sugegsted to the American Ambassador in London that America should declare that she would not tolerate European intervention in the Americas. That declaration of policy has become known as the Monroe Doctrine. What was the differences between the Holy Alliance and the Monroe Doctrine? I suggest this: The Holy Alliance was an alliance <n powers to preserve a peace for power, whereas the Monroe Doctrine was the threat of the use of power to preserve a peace for culture or growth. Preservation of Culture That brings us to a very vital point. Culture must be protected and we who meet here to-day are conscious of that fact and realise that those who sacrificed themselves in the Great War did so not from a desire to dominate but to the end that we should be free to grow—to glorify God. This they did and their purpose was achieved. Now the responsibility rests on our shoulders to see that these dead shall not have died in vain. European Civilisation Now consider. If four years ol war are destroyed half of Europe’s ac-

cumulations of centuries, could European civilisation stand the strain of another war! Nobody can say to-day whether the means of defence have kept pace with the means of destruction. Aeroplanes and poison gas alone suggest that combatants and civilians are now more defenceless against attack than ever before. It is now twelve years since the Armistice and the after-war problem is not in sight of being solved. International de pendence has developed tremendously since 1914. No country in the world can live into itself. I ask you now to contemplate another four years of war. What would be the result? Assuredly it would result in the wiping out of European civilisation. Need We Fear War? Need we fear the outbreak of war to-day, seeing that the position. of European civilization is so precarious? Let us survey the world as it is: Lithuania and Poland stand snarling at each other over the possession of the town of Vilna. Russia still pursues its aims to promote world revolution. Poland and Germany are at variance over the frontier question. Strained relations exist between Italy and France and between Italy and Jugo-Slavia. Palestine presents a conflict of racial interests between Arab and Jew. Egypt is full of turmoil against its King and against the British Empire. India is seething with riot and unrest. The north-west frontier is in a state of actual warfare. Formosa is also a seat of conflict. In China today civil war rends the country from end to end. In South Africa there is a gradual aligning of black versus whiteThe whole of South America has been swept by a wave of revolutions- Need we fear war? War to-day is ready to break out at a dozen points. And when we remember that it was but one pistol shot fired at Sarajevo that started th? conflict in 1914 the marvel is that another world war does not start to-night! I tell you that to-night we stand in the very shadow of war; we can almost hear the unfolding of the wings of the Angel of Death. What Shall Stay Warfare? What shall we do? How can we stay the flames? Let us consider the last century which closed with the Great War! Why were all the peace moves abortive? Stripped of all its superficialities it was that each nation feared the other. The nations of Europe were insular, there was no machinery of international effort except that which invention had forced upon us. What was the result? Every time a criss arose the press and poltcans n each country who made the greatest demands were deemed to be the most patriotic, those who sought to examine the pro and con of the matter to appreciate the view of the other side, were called unpatriotic and had to face unpopularity because they were said to be helping the enemy against their own country. These are hard words I know but they are used and let us face the fact. In each codntry, therefore, when calm judgment was most needed a high pitch of emotionalism prevailed. War under such circumstances was inevitable sooner, or later. The wonder is that it did not come earlier.

The League of Nations It was to supply that essential machinery of international co-operation that the League of Nations was formed. The nineteenth century saw the vindication of the Monroe Doctrine in the Americas which was the protection of peoples so that they may develop their own culture. But by far greater and more successful example of the use of power, not for dominance, bu 4 - to protect people, is to be found in the British Empire. The whole polity of our Empire has been a denial of domination as a principle of governnu I: and a vindication of the principle of freedom. Hence we see established throughout the world free communities, contributing largely to human needs, human happiness and humanity ’s well-being generally. The British Empire has been called the “Little League of Nations.” It has indeed been the League’s forerunner. Small wonder then that the British peoples have taken the lead in supporting the League of Nations, Lord Robert Cecil, a Conservative; Professor Gilbert Murray, a Liberal; Mr Ramsay MacDonald, a Labour Prime Minister, have each contributed much to the League’s support and usefulness- Support of the League is above party. It is the advancing on to the stage of the world what has been proved to be so desirable within the British Empire. The League I say, stands for the preservation of culture not th,e preservation of power. The League’s Work And what has this League of Nations accomplished in the twelve years since the Great War? The League has enlisted 52 nations sworn to the following: “In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security. (1) Not to resort to war; (2) by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between the nations; (3) the establishment of international law; (4) by the maintenance of justice and scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations.” Since the war twenty-two nations have made 250 arbitration treaties fixing the world court at The Hague as the Court of first resort At least six wars have been prevented- One was stopped last year by a telegram from the League- The typhus epidemic would have invaded Europe from Russia had not the League organised the Relief Campaign to stop it. The League has restored the finances of Austria, Hungary and Northern Greece. It has improved international traffic, public health, the control of the terrible traffic in drugs in women and in children. The limitation of armaments has been achieved in some measure and intellectual co-operation has been promoted

through its agency Now out of all thin effort, arises Al. Briand’s proposal for a United States of Europe The Motive Power Now what is the motive power behind the League of Nations? It is not the striving for power for DominionIt is the striving for freedom. It is not freedom from responsibility but the acceptance of the responsibilities which are implied in freedom. Power doos not rest upon a moral basis, but freedom cannot exist without it. To be free, therefore, we must be moral- To be moral we must obey the laws of GodIn fine, therefore, to preserve peace in our time and our children’s time, to strengthen the work which the League of Nations is attempting, to protect our civilisation from destruction let this anniversary service mark our reconsecration to the service of Him who twenty centuries since carried his cross up Calwary’s Hill to the end that Avar should cease and that peace and goodwill shall prevail for all men upon this earth.” “THINK AND PRAY PEACE” REV. CREED-MEREDITH’S ADVICE. The Same Ideals. “We are assembled in commemoration of the Armistice,’’ said the Rev. Creed Meredith. Because we are a group of men and women who desire to pledge ourselves and our lives to stand for the ideals of those men who fought and fell. They took the course whicn a few of us might dare to say was the wrong course in the circumstances be fore them. They took it for the ideals and in splendid hope of the future of the world. We are left with the heritage cf their hopes and ideals. “I am going to ask you to think ol the European situation,” the speak?) pre* ceded. “We find in Europe at pre sent five sets of 4 consciousness. ’ Firstly, Britain and her assembleu Dominions, the consciousness of I rance and her Allies, the consciousness of those countries which were vanquished in the war, the consciousness of the little group which remained neutral and, fifthly the peculiar consciousness of that remarkable and very virile powe r , Italy.” Dealing with each “consciousness” in turn the Rev. Meredith spoke of Great Britain as having so many, problems relating to her own Dominions and so many of an Imperial nature as to leave her' with very little thought to spare for the League of Nations. France, and to some extent Poland, had come to regard the League as a body expressly for the purpose of retaining for them that which they had gained in the war. “What we have secured we keep,” might interpret the thought of France, and to her the League was an instrument to that end. Something of the same spirit revealed itself in the neutral group, but they might be willing to see treaties revised. The Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria group was looking to the League to revise the very treaties which France held that the League was an instrument to maintain. Regarding Italy the speaker said that her leaders might feel that that hud been successful in the country’s government, but the time was approaching when that very government would depend upon Italy being led into armed conflict.

“It is an amazing and very grave problem,” he continued. “And it Las a note of anxiety. Not only do European politics suggest anxiety but the international economic situation is a grave one. We find reasonable people talkingin terms of bankruptcy and repudiation of debts. That repudiation may possibly mean that that which is the greatest. safeguard against world war—that nobody will have money to finance it—will be taken away. It may mean a new sense of national consciousness, that countries can live within themselves. Having repudiated their debts they might go to war with their neighbours to gain w’ealth. The matter is grave. “How are we to save the world from a possible cataclysm? How are we to suggest a contribution to t-ie ideals for which these men died? Some would say by armaments. Because times are critical people would ‘say let us arm’ I think the more thoughtful men and women will feel that such people are talking in a foreign language. Here the speaker quoted Sidney Smith’s reference to two women who were talking to each other from the upper storeys of houses on either side of the street. They would never agree because they were talking from “opposite premises.” The speaker held that those who would arm themselves to prepare for peace were talking from opposite premises and it was impossible to argue with them. “Arms breed distrust,” he stated. “They breed suspicion and they place people in such a state of nerves that they will rush headlong into the very crises which they look to guard against. For centuries the nations have tried that way. but to the more thoughtful there is a deeper and a more sublime way; the way of working from the highest motives for the peace of the world. We must think of it as something bound up with God’s Divine purpose of life, and there are two things which we must do. First to think peace. As men think so they Jearn to act. Their thoughts permeate and rule their actions. We must think peace, not with our heads buried like the ostrich, but we must face up to our difficulties as though they were a glorious venture worthy of our best efforts. “Pray Peace.” “We must also pray peace,” the speaker concluded. “Look to Him as the source of all good things. We must believe in prayer as the greatest power of man. If we look to God He will give us Peace that passeth understanding.”