OUR DEMANDS AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 71, 18 December 1918, Page 6

OUR DEMANDS AT THE PEACE CONFERENCE

" THE ONE GREAT ISSUE. Sir,—ln your leader of Saturday, following up recent pronouncements of a similar nature, you insist that defeated Germany shall be dealt with practically on the principle—one had thought it long ago discredited—of "iin eye for an eyo and a tooth for a. tooth." It is noticeable, too, with every passing week since the armistice that Mf. Lloyd George and the Coalition Cabinet, of Great Britain are becoming more exigent in the demands which, they tell us, will at the Peace 'Conference be made upon the eueiny. The familiar lines : concerning the devil's differing'mind in sickness and health must surely occur to many as they read these outpourings, At the height of the war, when the issues were most painfully uncertain, the British Prime Minister many times informed the Empire and the world that it was not the German people whom we were fighting, but the German rulers; that Britain had no intention of humbling the rank and hie of that country to the dust. President Wilson's fourteen points "seemed then to the Allies to contain every demand they would be justified in making, and the President more than once made it clear that America, while absolutely refusing to deal with the Hohcnzollerns, was de-termiued-as he put it-to do justice not only to the nations to whom we wish to 'be just, but also to the nations to whom we (on the principle of an eye for an eve and a tooth for a tooth) do not wish "to bo just. The great President has been silent for some little time, but it will be a surprise indeed if at the council table he repudiates his former attitude, or modifies in the slightest-particu-lar his constant contention. But meanwhile the dance goes merrily on, and the. tune is "ns the Germans, if victorious, would have done unto us, so let us do unto them." . •" Where will this dance load us? It will lead to a total forgetfuluess of the fnct so often emphasised during the conflict, that the war was a war to end war. Personally I never had the slightest nnsnivin" ns to the inevitableness ot the war; it had to be fought. - Germany was responsible for its outbreak, but, as Benjamin Kidd has so conclusively shown in his recent book, "The Science of Power, it is n shallow thought to credit Germany alone with the responsibility for this world convulsion. It was her hand that lit tho pile that set the world in a blaze, but who gathered the pile? Had not nil nations a share in this evil transaction? And the underlying conviction which inspired the pro-Witt' attitude of a vast multitude, probably an overwhelming majority of the British people, including tho Christian Churches, was that the war would remove or at least help in. the iemoval of those conditions which render wai- inevitable. In the epilogue, of his memorable book, "The Soul of the War, Philip Gibbs, referring to the antecedent conditions, asks: "Did the leaders ot modern thought do anything with their "renins or their knowledge to break down old frontiers of hatred, to enlighten the ignorance between ontr nation and another, or to put such powers into the hands of peoples that they might have strength'to resist the tyranny of military castes and of military ideals? Have not onr politicians and our teachers, witn few exceptions, used all their influence to foster dark old superstitions which lurk in such good words as patriotism and honour, to keep the people blind so that they might not see the shining light of liberty and to adulterate the doctrines of Christ which most of them profess by a gospel of international jealousy based upon trade interests and commercial "reed" illnny of us dreamed-did we only dream ?—that the war would chango all this, that by crushing German militarism we should put an end to mi itarism everywhere, and by universal disarmament 'remove the temptation to figlir, and tnke out of the way of the nations the obstacles hitherto hindering the recognition and realisation of their cssen-. tial solidarity and brotherhood. A war to end war! ' But unless I greatly err, n we abandon ourselves to the mood whicli now -apparently holds the mind of many of our leaders and is reflected in m° st of Ihe public prints, we shall find that Armageddon has not yet beoii fought. Hint: another and even more dreamul war lies before us in the not far distant future. But this mood will not obsess tho British people as u whole. It is no surprise to find, as reported by you a day or two ago,-that the leaders of the Free Churches of England—who were almost to a man whole-hearted in their support of Hie war against Germany—are now fighting hard against the Coalition Government and its professed aims. And though we have been hcarini little of it in the Press T shall be greatly surprised if the manual toilers, tho men and women of Britain, do not insistently demand that the supreme consideration at tho Peace Conference shall be, not even tho

punishment of I he German rulers, though they merit the due reward of their deeds; not the exaction of indemnities from the Gorman nation, nor the casting of them for a lime outside the comity of Europe, but the establishment of such international relations—whether by means of a League of Nations or otherwise—as shall secure an enduring peace, and mnke, if God will, this world a world without war. Everything, I submit, sinks into utter insignificance beside this aim. Tho Commons of Britain and the British churches will insist on this, and the quality of their insistence will lie conditioned by the attitude of the authorities. Tiie people of tho churches will go to no desperate extremes in vindication of their.contention; but is it not possible, evon probable, that a large section of the community, if their just wishes nro disregarded, may plunge the nation info the throes nf ciyil strife. The portent of Bolshevism cannot be disregarded, even though there may helittlo likelihood of the spread of: this nerniiv oiis cult in England and still less in Now Zealand. But there is a danger that; the Labour Party, if they see that our rulers are permitting tho high aim of "no more war" to be displaced by aims which, however intellijrible and perhaps in tho circumstances even natural, will spell out the continuance of the bad and mad old international relations (hut. have been in the last analysis responsible for the ware of the past, may be driven into sympathy with Bolshevism or at least into revolt against constituted authority. This is what I think will happen if, in the eagerness with which we pursue .the penalising of Germany, we .fovjot that Hie lesson of the war above all others is a wise ■ and Christian disposition of international relations, and of social conditions within the commonwealth.

I have no sympathy with what has been called the i*fiiin,vscont slush of mere sentimentalism. llr. Asquith's demand early in the war for "restoration, reparation, and guarantees" has always seemed to me reasonable and right. Even more: Lot the ex-Kaiser be brought to trial before a competent tribunal of English, American, anil French Ju3ges, a'nd if he is found guilty of beginning the war let him nay the price of his guilt. And in like manner deal with the dehumanised monsters who decreed the sinking of passenger vessels, and all the other named and nameless abominations of Germany frightfnlness. . To punish the guiltv will not hinder but lieli) in the establishment of a righteous and' enduring peace.

But to go further, or even to permit the desire of bringing the chief culprits to judgment to luonopolise our mkids, so that we shall lose sight of the hatefulness of militarism and the passionate need of such international adjustments as shall guarantee us against all future war is simply to court disaster. There will be war again if militarism docs not go. There will be strife between the nations, and the gulf between the few and the many already unhapnily so wide will become impassable. May God avert this!

When I road Hint the British churches had taken the field against militarism (for so T interpret their, notion) I found myself wonderinjr what 'the churches of New Zealand will do. l'fobably they will not bo found wanting. The line of practical effort is clear enough. A. concordat must bo established between the churches and the Labourists and Socialists, and • whosoever else in. the community is determined that war is an abomination that must be banished from God's world. Whatever may be said of many phases of the spirit of labour—ami its temper, at least in this country, has been too often crassly materialistic—it is beyond challenge that they.are much nearer the Ivinnlom of God than the advocates of militarism. If Church and Labour unite there will be an end to militarism in this country and in Great Britain. Ido not know what, the attitude of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand will prove to be, but if the mood of venerea lie/) goes on intensifying there are some, of us who will do' our very utmost to bring the Church to which we have the honour to belong into line with any body of men and women in this country who are out against war and all that leads t« war. My rending of the mind of the Church is that in seeking to effect such an anialBimntimv w shall be facing no insuperable task.—l am, etc., JAMES GIBB. St. John's Manse, December It.