The White Ribbon “For God, and Home, and Humanity.” WELLINGTON, MARCH 18, 1929. LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

White Ribbon, Volume 33, Issue 404, 18 March 1929, Page 6

The White Ribbon “For God, and Home, and Humanity.” WELLINGTON, MARCH 18, 1929. LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

The following; address is by Mrs Denton Leech, J.P.. Hon. Secretary Dominion Council League of Nations Union. It was given at a meeting of the Dunedin Central Union: Madame President and Members of the W.C.T.U., — It is a great honour to address such a body of women —no idle phrase—for I feel it is a very great privilege to meet such a valiant body as you have shown yourselves to be. You have fought so courageously—so sturdily for a principle and a reform, that you are convinced is true and righteous. Lately you met with a set-back, but not disheartened, you at once ret out to re organise your forces and to devise new tactics. That spells success.

Though you have not reached your goal, you have made great advances:— (1) The habits of the people have changed; (2) Public opinion has definitely sided with temperance; (3) Arguments have taken the place of scoffing. You note that alcohol has become an international question in relation to health; to the welfare of children; to the safeguarding of backward people. In the International work of the League of Nations, it has been found impossible to ignore the baneful influence of alcohol in those three large departments of its w r ork: the Health Commission, race hygiene; the Welfare of Children; the Mandates Commission.

In the near future support will come from men-folk and from the Dench—the drunken motorist is a different proposition from the drunken driver of a horse-drawn vehicle —the faithful animal usually took his drunken master safely home. Some of us would like to have less class-distinetion in the decision of the Bench in these oases. The advent of commercial aviation means strict abstention from alcohol—the slightest delay in mental reaction at a critical moment—a slight confusion of mind —spells disaster to the aviator and possible death from crashing his machine. The W.C.T.U. lesson of courageous perseverance must he applied in relation to World Peace and the abolition of w r ar. Patience, remembering that there are 56 nations having varied and complex forms of Government are engaged in reforming themselves, and only ten years have elapsed since they commenced, reminding ourselves that New’ Zealand possesses the most direct and simplest form of democratic government, yet, even so, some 18 or 20 years pass before a reform is achieved. tn 1920, the high hopes of the people and the ideals of the League of Nations seemed about to be quickly realised—expectation vaulted beyond the realms of practical politics. We are to-day faced by the same international suspicion—distrust—Jealousy—willingness to believe the w r orst of other nations and to impute ulterior motives, just ihe qualities that threaten the peace of the w’orld.

Su, taking a lesson from you, I ask you to look back with me and measure the progress that has been made toward outlawing war. and therefrom to find courage and hope. In 1919 the Allied Powers laid do vn the principle that the race in armaments must never again take place; the various nations should agree on a limitation beginning with the defeated enemy Powers. When the German Envoy, horror-struck at the terms of the Peace Treaty, and the destruction of their great military power, refused to sign, a letter was addressed to them, signed by the French Prime Minister, on behalf of the Allies: “That Germany's disAmiamenit was hut a prelude to general reduction and limitation for all nations as the most fruitful prevention of war.” Article 8. Since that date, successive steps have been taken by the Great Powers to find a method of putting that principle Into practice—firstly, the Covenant, 1920, Article 10, which outlaw’s aggressive war, followed by other schemes. For w'ho was to judge aggressive w r ar? ... no nation would acknowledge such an aim. Some years passed . . . each successive Assembly brought discussion, and after many abortive attempts the Geneva Protocal was propounded in 1924. This was accepted by France and some smaller nations, but Great Britain felt the responsibilities too heavy and too vague for application to the far-flung British Empire. Nevertheless, good came of it, for thf problem was clarified into the three terms— Security—followed by Arbitration leading to Disarmament. You will recall the dramatic episode of international history, when the British Prime Minister and the Premier of Franco travelled together to Geneva and enunciated these three conditions—Security—Arbitration Disarmament. In the following year, 1925. came the Locarno Pact—to follow’ on Germany’s admission to the League. There were two powerful groups of nations Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia. and France; Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy. By the latter, the present frontier line between France and Germany was assured —even a neutral zone proposed—the Rhineland was to be evacuated earlier than 1935, Each country knew that

should she open hostilities against any one nation, she would have to fight the whole group—it would take some thinking before taking such a risk. In this lay the harrier io arms and the guarantee of peace. Still even then, important as it was, it did not give sufficient security to warrant reduction of armaments —these meantime w*ere piling up. Then, three years later, 1928, came the Kellogg Pact.

The signing of the Kellogg Pact was an occasion of great dignity; it took place in the Foreign Office in Paris, hence the change in the name Pact of Paris. The Quai D’Orsay is a stately building, and from the parapet of the four sides there fluttered the flags of all nationsprobably for the first time in history, that from any one foreign office the flags of the nations fluttered at the same moment.

The Office of Foreign Minister is a magnificent chamber —hung with priceless tapestries and works of ar t—here the foreign ministers assembled; there remained one vacant seat in front of M. Briand and M. Poincare. As the clock struck three there entered the German Envoy, Dr. Stressman. still looking w r eak from his recent illness. M. Briand and M. Poincare rose to greet him with outstretched hand. It w r as the first time for over 60 years that a German Minister had been received at the Quai DOrsay. ‘Simple, direct, effective, didn’t trouble about details of guns or tonnage or poison gas or regiments; if all peoples banish war among themselves, the rest follows. So then security having been achieved, arbitration is provided for by the Permanent Couit of International Justice, and conciliation by the Council of the League of Nations, then reduction of armaments is brought within reach. Perhaps till now' w'e have thought of reduction of armaments as a matter solely for government to settle by means of cutting down the army and scrapping vessels of w’ar, to be arranged by international agreements, and then would be lightened the heavy burden of taxation that is strangling industry in all countries. Matters are not so simple. The economic ramifications of military

and naval armaments are so far reaching, so complex—so human, that it is not possible lor any nation to act hurriedly.

Disbanding a few regiments, as was done in India, created considerable suffering—men have signed on for long terms with a pension in view—and soldiers are not easily absorbed into civil life; while officers take the King’s commission for lifetime. What can they turn to for a livelihood to meet responsibilities undertaken justly under former conditions —and unemployment already ripe and the professions overcrowded? The ordinary army officer has scarcely any capital at command.

Then there are vast industries, w'ith the army of industrial workers —enormous engineering works employing the highest skill—the steelw’orks—the lifeblood of England almost; —the manufacture of machinery for such —the clothing and food for army and navy—the settlements that grew up around the “big works" in various parts of Great Britain —the retail shops that supply the necessaries of life for the workers —the cluster of businesses of all descriptions that are dependent on the wages earned in the steel works —naval dockyard or barracks —even down to the tiny shops that supply the little daily needs of the workman.

Readjustments take considerable time, entail great hardships, and increase the unemployment and cause intolerable suffering to individuals. One instance comes to my mind: When Great Britain gave Home Rule to Ireland, she withdrew* the naval units -Bantry Bay was no longer a naval base -the vessels w*ere gone but gone also w r as the livelihood of the locality, gone in one night, so to speak. I am not advocating large armies —nor an increase in the navy though these mean good trade but just indicating the very complexity of the problem of Disarmament, that may well cause State members of the League of Nations to ko slowly; for the same position exists in those countries that produce armament — Krupps in Germany, Creusots in Fra n ce— A rm st ron tr- W h i t wort h of England. The statesmen may well hesitate to increase unemployment by thou-

sands —which would follow the closing down of such industries. There »h another department know'n as tl e Traffic in arms—private firms that export arms and munitions to countries who do not produce, such as Persia, Poland, and small states —China They need defensive weapons. Thus the Armstrong-Whitworth firm was selling to Turkey—some twelve months later these very modern high-grade w'eapons were turned against the Anzacs in Gallipoli and British regiments in Iraq—that is, that British trains, British workers and British capital w r as destined to kill British soldiers. No doubt, the same is true of German firms trading with Russia, or TT.S.A. and the Spaniards. In 1919, the Allies negotiated the China inns Embargo, by w r hich eleven states agreed not to send arms or munitions to China until there should be a recognised government. Unfortunately, there were tw r o omissions not noticed at the time—no mention was made of the air service —nor machinery for making munitions. Consequently, for some time Britain sold aeroplanes to China, and so did the Chinese Generals imported machinery for munitions.

Then Germany, Russia, and Czechoslavakia. did not sign the Embargo and W’ere freely exporting to r, hina; these countries cantured the markets at the expense of the signatories. Then, early in 1928, Germany and Russia adhered—but the damage was done the Chinese can make their own munitions. Also large profits w r ere made by individuals and firms by smuggling armaments into China. Another attempt to control traffic in arms by the Treaty of St. Germain’s, an undertaking by the producing countries that no state should export arms, except to recognised governments ef other states. Twenty-three States signed—but the Treaty of St. Germains has never been ratified, because naturally, it must be all or none; in this case the r.S.A. refused to ratify, their reason being that it would debar the U.S*>. exporting arms to the small American States of South America. None other States would sign. Revolvers, rifles, explosives, aeroplanes and ships, may be for peace-

ful purposes or can bo directed to war—these cannot be controlled. There is another aspect—some firms In the world have made fortunes out of supplying arms to China and Latin American countries hut how does this compare with loss of markets to the whole world through the unsettled conditions of these states. Indies, I have dwelt somewhat lengthily on this all-important question of Reduction—because all of us are apt to become pessimistic about the League of Nations and abolition of w r ar—perhaps, in the first days we allowed expectation to vault beyond the realm of possibilities; we certainly did not know the complexity of the problem nor the economic and industrial ramification of the trade and traffic in arms. But whUe these matters are too high for us, and New Zealand does not manufacture war munitions- yet there is very definite work for each of us. We can sow the seeds of amity and goodwill towards other nations, even though their standards and their values differ from the AngloSaxon ones when we read of violent crimes of a country, we can just think of those recorded in this small Dominion, and realise that such bear no proportion to the lawabiding intellectual classes of that particular country. We can % call to mind the great contribution made to our civilisation by each and several nations of the known world, and thereby become citizens of the new world.