DISARMAMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 136, 6 December 1933, Page 7

DISARMAMENT

WAR AND ITS CAUSES

FEAR THE CHIEF MOTIVE

PROBLEMS DISCUSSED

"Disarmament" was tho subject for discussion at the meeting of the Wellington branch of the League of Nation* Union last night. Mr. \V. J. McEldowney presided over an attendance of over twenty people. The subject was opened up by a review by Professor T. A. Hunter. / ,'■•■"'. Admitting that the/subject was.capable of almost interminable discussion, Professor Hunter said "disarmament could not bo discussed without its.relationship to war and the conditions of war being considered as well. People commonly looked at the world in two ways. For instance, one might look at the city of Wellington objectively, merely as a collection of buildings and a harbour, or one might consider the ideals, aspirations, hopes, fears, and labours of_the people who had produced it. It was not otherwise with, disarmament. It could be looked at from the objective point of view—cannon, machine-guns, and warships—but there was little solution by arguments prepared along: those lines. They could also, however, look at the question from, the point of view of the hopes and fears of the people who were striving to eliminate war by disarmament. Although the two points .of view could not be separated, it was from the subjective point of view that he wished to speak; habits were as material to war as munitions. War was an effect and not a cause, t^ie result of national and international relations. War was important from the fact that it demanded and received much more economic wealth than any other human institution, as could be seen by. the large proportions it assumed in' the British Budget in the Army, Navy, and Air Votes, and . to that must be added . practically tho whole of the National Debt, and a considerable part of the votes for pensions?'; Sixty per cent, of the worldte Expenditure was for war, but the economic,'side of war was not the most important; its result on/the happiness and. lives of the nations of the world wag-probably much more than the economic flebti , WAR NOT AN INSTINCT. Was %var absolutely necessary? If war-belonged :,to-the list of natural things, like , air and -water,' then obviously it was of .no use .talking of disarmament. \ Three views had been put forward in Tegard to that. One was that war was tho result of man's instinctive pugnacity. He did not think that true, because "the system, of justice sprang just as much from that 'tendency as war did. The most primir tive people were not at all warlike; man did not become warlike until property developed. A great deal of what people imagined to be instinctive was clearly due to the early training of children. Education was responsible for much more than instinctive habits. Everybody knew that sensitiveness to untruthfulness disappeared in times of war. It was said that war was the only way in which men could be made to co-operate, as though co-operation in a war on vice, .disease, and ignorance would not provide a sufficient field for co-operation. It was perfectly clear that with modern scientific ideas and control of niierobic life, the possibilities of the horrors of war 'were not' restricted. ,by. any means to Tfrhat was usually meant by armaments,' and it was-clear.that if war must be dealt with, it must be by its causes. The most important factor today was tho' economic] which was driving Japan on. It was known that in 1913 the relations between the French and German armament firms were exposed, and similarly in England. During the war it was,not at all impossible for British capital to build'a warship which was sunk by an Austrian submarine built by British capital. , '■/ . ■ ■ ■ ' PRIME DRIVE TO WAR. ' It was said that the preparation £o£ war was the real war, and that battles were merely indications of a victory, won before they started. The struggle of the world had become very intense, associated with it being tariffs to keep out goods, and with that the hop^ss, fears, and resentments of great bodies of people, with a lessening- of the sense of justice and integrity. The fundamental drive towards war lay in fear, resentments,; acquisitiveness, and ambitions. INDUSTRIALISM'S FART. One of the worst factors in international relations was a particular kind of pride, the "pan-Anglican/ or "100 per cent. American" idea, the notion (within itself), that a nation is above every other nation^ Propaganda worked up feelings until they swamped reason, and man reverted to his most primitive types. " The danger was greatly increased by industrialism. There was fear of imaginary danger* invented by the and.indus"l trialism. increased the production o< implements of war, and also increased the proportion of the population which could be set apart to use them. With, the more rapid mobilisations possible* today it was easy to assess the more rapid growth of fear, anger, and resentment. ''■.'.' The problem was much more one-of international< government than of disarmament. "I feel y that until we have an international body backed up by tie opinion of a majority of the nations, of the world, a body strong enough to impose its will upon.the nation-breaking an agreement, until, then .we have n* chance of preventing war," said Professor Hunter. "I think the League failed hopelessly in the case |of Japan, in the case of a nation not in any way connected with Europe. If there was not a chance for the lieague to operate under these conditions, what chance would it have in the case of trouble between European nations?" EDUCATION'S DART. "The immediate* problem that faces us is what are we doing for the education of peace relatively to what we aroi doing for the education of war, "Professor Hunter added. '.'I think we underestimate altogether the influence that education of the warlike type has on the minds of people from generation, to generation. To appeal to war is like appealing from Caesar sober to Caesar drunk. Reduction of armaments alone will not solve the problem. We must have some form of internationalgovernment based on reason, not international anarchy based on prejudice." An interesting hour's discussion followed, at the close of which the speaker was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.