INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 21752, 21 June 1934, Page 11

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BURDENS DF THE NATIONS BRITAIN’S LEAD COULD BRING HOPE ADDRESS BY MR H. P. KIDSON On the subject of ‘lnternational Relations,’ Mr H; P. Kidson. rector of the Otago Boys’ High School, addressed the meeting of the Young Farmer's’ School at the second session this morning. He impressed upon the lads* that the Christian duty was surely not a negative one, but a positive one of intervening in a conflict on the side of the weak and of the oppressed. “ As Christians,” he said, “ we should support • Britain in an unequivocal guarantee that in the interests of humanity it will fight an aggressor with all its moral and physical force.” The Chairman (Mr A. C. Cameron) introduced the speaker, whom, he said, the lads would be pleased to meet, as they had had the opportunity of visiting that honourable institution of which he was rector. First of all, said Mr Kidson, he would like to compare the spirits and attitudes of men from other countries. If an American were to enter the room and he asked how business was, he would say: “It was pretty sick, but it’s recovering now,” adding “ ballyhoo ” as a means of boosting up his spirits. He would say that there were unemployed and cases of starving in his country, but that would soon be altered. On the other hand, the attitude of a young man froili Franco would be different. He would be polite, but would say that life was hard, and he had no friends. He would be as crafty and insincere as ever. He would show fear and mistrust, and one might ask him why he could not be a little magnanimous and meet his difficulties halfway. However, on reflection, it would be seen that he had learned his Cynicism in a dear school, his country, having been twice blasted by the Germans. Crying “Hail, Hitler!” the young German would click his heels, . and appear tense, truculent, and inspired. He would also say that life was hard, but that Hitler would settle that. His country was on the horizon of a new era, and it would be a case of Germany for the Germans. He would say: “We hate you all; you will grind us no longer.” The disposition of the Italian would be cheerful and sunny. “ Mussolini will see to that,” would be-his answer to all questions. - The Rumanian would be ill-clad, illkempt, and ill-fed, but he would say he was happy. Everything would be all right, he would say, “ if you let us alone.” Hostile, hard, sinister, capable, and ,quietly sure, the Japanese would not be questioned very much, but if a stray question or two were put to him he would say: “You do not understand; you are all against us. We have a poor land. You sell goods to my people, but you won’t take our goods. Wo must have part of China.” The Chinese would he garrulous, simple, and honest. “ You help us, eh?” he would ask, the symbol of his failure.

“ By bringing before you in imagination young men of your own age from other lands,” continued the speaker, “ I have endeavoured to show you some of the burdens that are weighing heavily upon the nations at the present time. ’ All of them arc perturbed, unprosperous, and most are suspicious, or frankly afraid of their neighbours. Through fear and lack of confidence, ,their trade with other lands has ’dwindled. Many of them have handed, themselves over body and soul to desperate political experiments. Most of them are hopelessly endeavouring to be economically self-contained. All see the futility of war, but all feel that it is desperately near to them. The atmosphere is one of suspicion, lack of faith in their neighbours. This is all the worse, because the nations who signed the League Covenant saw the light of international trust and cooperation.” He then ; gave one of the main sets of events that had caused this situation, and what he thought the New Zealanders' attitude as members of the British Commonwealth should be. “ Perhaps the prime cause of our descent into these wretched depths during the last few years is the failure of the signatories to the Covenant of the League of Nations to keep faith with their word and to make the sacrifices for the general good that the Covenant demanded. “ The Covenant was a splendid affirmaation that war as a means of settling disputes was mad futility. The signatory Powers agreed that the maintenance of peace required the reduction of national armaments to the lowest possible point, and agreed to the enforcement by common action of international obligations. I want to emphasise this, that they all agreed to the application of certain sanctions or penalties (unfortunately ill-defined) against a nation which committed an unprovoked act of aggression. “ This collective action against an aggressor was the essential part of the Covenant signatories’ plan for making war impossible and for giving that security 1 and protection which is the only condition that will bring about disarmament. “ While we can pay tribute to the League for the splendid work it has done in the general field of human welfare, and while we can join with the Russian Ambassador in Paris in recognising that in spite of its failures and imperfections it i§j still able to some extent to check aggressive tendencies, we know that in the main work of organising peace it has failed. Of the signatory Powers to the Versailles Treaty the vanquished remains _ embittered, and is in open revolt against its provisions. The victors are unable to rely on one another sufficiently to fulfil their own part of tho bargain—the part that, concerns disarmament. One of the signatories to the treaty and to the Covenant of the League has, in tho opinion of the others, broken its word and committed an act of aggression, and no sanctions have been applied. With the exception of Germany, which is openly rearming, and possibly of Rumania, all the great nations are armed more powerfully than they were in 1914. “ Many of us are feeling that tho only solution of them is a return to the Covenant and a clear definition of the sanctions that should be applied against an offending nation and an organised planning of the method of their application. Not until the nations agree to collective action will the necessary led-

ing of security be ■■ gained that will be the prelude to disarmament. Ihe sanctions may be diplomatic, economic, or at the last resort military. It is claimed that even a “ mineral ” section (the prohibition of all exports of minerals to an offending Power) would quickly cripple any nation, so delicate are modern metallurgical processes and machines. “ Pledging ourselves to such action in a set of circumstances that are unknown is abhorrent to us all. Blit what is the alternative? If we cannot agree to this collective action, what must wo do? We must make ourselves strong enough to resist any nation or combination of nations that may attack us. Or else we must make an alliance with another nation for mutual protection. And an inevitable armaments race will begin, with war as its inevitable result. An armaments race means an intolerable burden, and it means war. This seems the only alternative to the loyal adoption of the principle of collective security, which appears to be without doubt the lesser e ' ‘‘ In this new attitude Britain must take the lead. On her statesmen rests this immense responsibility. Once her word were clearly given and the sanctions to be adopted were clearly defined, I feel sure that there would bo a rapid change of attitude on the part of the other Powers. Prance’s demand for security (and who can blame her for making it?) would be satisfied. An all-round disarmament would be possible, and Germany’s sense of justice satisfied. A strong lead from Britain is the only thing that can bring any hope to the nations at this time—a declaration and a guarantee that it will combine with the other members of the Leagi'ie, even to the extent of using armed force, against an aggressor. “ To strengthen the League in this way seems our only hope. What alternative is there to the League? And. what should our personal attitude be in this unhappy situation? We are told by men like Dr Norwood that wo must cleanse our hearts and minds of mistrust and hate, and bring the Christian spirit and ideals to bear on these problems. But what must our definite and immediate attitude be? In abstract theory it may bo right for the Christian to say that he will on no account take up arms. But the taking of such a personal pledge at this stage will not stop war.” Mr Kidson answered several questions, and on the motion of Mr Gerald Ncwland (Ngapara) was accorded a vote of thanks.