COLLECTIVE PEACE

Evening Star, Issue 22457, 30 September 1936, Page 11

COLLECTIVE PEACE

BRITAIN STILL HOPES HOLDING THE BALANCE Whenever two or three are gathered together in our midst in these days, one subject dominates _ all others, writes A. G. Gardiner, in the ‘ San Francisco Chronicle.’ To which pido in the great argument is Britain drifting? To which side should it drift? How are, the forces within and behind the Government shaping themselves? Are the scales going down on the side of Germany or on the side of France, or, alternatively, are they being kept in perfect equipoise for a decision that must be dictated by events? Is collective peace finally shattered, or is it still a bare possibility dependent on the balancing power of this country and the progress of the great re-arma-ment scheme as an instrument for keeping the dogs of war in leash? Never do I recall'an issue of first magnitude on which public opinion was so fluid and fluctuating, so visibly waiting for the mould into which it will now and take decisive shape. If there is one constant element in the debate it is the desire to avoid war. But whether that desire will be best promoted by leaning to Germany or leaning to France, or standing stiffly aloof from both is infinitely obscure. The mood of uncertainty cuts across all parties and has little to do with the feelings and memories of the war. The more extreme Tories, who were most embittered against Germany during the war, are disposed to see m Hitler and his dictatorship a defence against the inroads of Communism. Official Labour, which was sympathetic with Germany during the war and fiercely hostile to the French policy of encirclement after the war, is antiHitler and pro-League, while still distrustful of France in spite of the Blum regime. CITY AND CITIZENS. The attitude of the City, governed by financial considerations, leans towards Germany. That of the plain citizen fluctuates uncertainly between fear of Germany and distrust. of France. “A plague on both your houses,” he says. If we could only cut ourselves adrift from both and take refuge in isolation, he would be satisfied. And what of the Government ? Critics like Bertrand Russell see in the omens indications that, if war comes, “ we are going to fight on the side of Hitler.” In his view, the clearest of these indications are the lino we have taken on the Dardanelles question and the tone of ‘ The Times,’ which he takes to be inspired and which preserves a markedly friendly attitude to Germany. Ido not share, this view. There are, notoriously, divisions iu the Cabinet, but, in so far as they have been expressed outside, they have certainly not given support to Mr Russell’s thesis—e.g., the War Minister’s recent speech in Paris, whose extremely proFrench flavour caused so npich indignant comment in Parliament. The aim of Mr Baldwin, I think, is clear. It is to keep an even keel between Germany and France in the hope of salvaging the cause of collective peace. He wants Germany back under the umbrella of Geneva. To succeed in that, be must show both Germany and France alike that our policy is disinterested and that our hands are free. Meanwhile, we -arm and make our weight in the. argument of peace or war more formidable. A DIFFICULT ROLE. It is a difficult role to play and it brings down dn him and his Cabinet the suspicions alike of those who fear that the leanings are to Germany and those who foar that we are drifting once more into war by a too close attachment to France. If he saves the cause of collective peace from complete wreck, his policy will be justified. If ho fails and fails from the clear refusal of Germany to associate herself with collective peace, there is, in my judgment, little doubt on which side the British Government and the British people will be found. It will not be on the side of what Mr Maynard Keynes calls “ the Brigand Powers”—the Powers, Japan, Italy, and, it may be, Germany, which have deliberately committed themselves to war as the instrument of policy. It will bo on the side of the Powers which want peace and will only engage in war to defend the principle of peace and the authority of law as against the dictatorship of force "in the affairs of nations. If this dread necessity threatens, all the incertitudes of this iinic n il! disc ':'>car.