THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1927 CENSURE MOTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 26 November 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1927 CENSURE MOTION

rjHE lengthy cabled report, appearing partly in yesterday's issue and partly in to-day’s, of the House of Commons debate on Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s motion of censure upon the Baldwin Government in connection with its conduct of international disarmament discussions is well worthy of study. The accusation brought by the Leader of the Opposition against the Government is in effect that it has entirely mishandled the question, and has tended rather to check than to encourage the pacifist disposition of other nations. The hollowness of this accusation, which is backed by Mr Lloyd George, leader of the little Liberal section of the House, is probably even better indicated by the arguments and allegations adduced in its support than by the replies coming from the other side. Both Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George have found themselves with so little in the way of specific fact in the armoury of their attack that they have had to take recourse to the unattested vapouring generalities of the demagogue.

The Labour leader opens with the statement that “the Geneva naval conference was bungled from beginning to end. Britain,” he said —with a rather inappropriate resort to military metaphor—“failed to scout the field before joining the battle. The only chance of an Anglo - American agreement, and of an American agreement with the rest of the world, was for Britain and America to come together and remove the chance of war.” Now, that looks all very easy and plausible, something in fact that is to be accomplished merely by the wave of an olive branch in Britannia’s hand. Mr. MacDonald, however, seems to have already forgotten the history of the years since the war ended, to go no further back. Had he borne, it in mind he would have recognised that of all the Great Powers America, as represented by her Government, has shown herself the least capable of looking at things

from the other side's point of view. It would, we fancy, be difficult for him to adduce any instance of importance where America has adopted principles or proposals other than those which she has herself advanced. She has throughout the period of reconstruction shown the most jealous regard for what she apparently deems to be her own peculiar function—to be the sole initiator of any movement in which she is to take a part. For primary suggestions from elsewhere, no matter how tentatively and delicately ventured, she has shown but the scantest receptiveness.

Even the long-thought-out proposals of her own President, as embodied in the Covenant of the League of Nations, were rejected by the American Senate because they brought the country in on something like a level of status and responsibility with other nations of the earth. The ineradicable idea that seems to be at present implanted in the American political mind is that America must either be on top or out of it altogether. She imagines herself, and perhaps rightly for the time being, quite big and strong enough to stand alone and aloof, and the notion of equality is obviously distasteful to her. Mr. MacDonald knows all this, yet he talks as if Britain had only to make a gesture across the Atlantic for joining hands in the maintenance of the world’s peace and it would be warmly welcomed. On the contrary, her sense of her own power and dignity is so tender that she is of all the most difficult to deal with. Only a master hand like Balfour’ is light enough to stroke the American eagle without ruffling its feathers. Then we have Mr. MacDonald p little later on,, saying that “as Russia was now joining hi the Geneva explorations, security could proceed.” When he has to invoke the Moscow delegates as fellow apostles, in spreading the gospel of peace the Labour leader is surely very hard put to it. He apparently forgets what followed on his own rash venture, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, into the dangerous realm of professedly friendly relations with Russia. We all know the use to which the admission of her diplomatic and commercial representatives to London was put. He himself confessed the mistake he made, a mistake that had to be painfully rectified by the Government he is now assailing, and that necessarily by a step that put the two nations still further asunder. Finally, we have Mr. Lloyd George contributing towards imnrovinst Anglo-American relations by talking of both nations “blathering about peace.” This is a phrase that is scarcely calculated to ingratiate with a country that is so singularly sensitive to outside criticism, and that, incidentally, possesses so many fluent speakers. In this Mr. Lloyd George shows himself as even less capable than Mr. MacDonald of understanding the difficulties that beset discussions and negotiations (with America. His revers’ ?n to the -language of Limehouse is not at all likely to help in smoothing those difficulties away—for it is to be borne in mind that as an ex-Prime Minister what Lloyd George says will not fail to find full publicity in the United States as providing a true expression of British popular feeling towards the other great Anglo-Saxon people. The fact of the matter, of course, is that both these Opposition leaders are prostituting one of the most vital problems of the world to-day to the forwarding of their ow’n political party interests. For this they have stifled all sense of proportion with regard to the issues involved. In order to make themselves good with a body of electors easily recognised as bent on establishing' and preserving peace, they are trying to make out that those in power are failing in their duty towards those ends. To achieve their purpose they do not hesitate to belittle and to undermine the influence of their country in the League on which such hopes as we may reasonably entertain are centred. As still one of the strongest of the Great Powers, the last thing Great Britain can do with any hope of lasting beneficial result is to assume an attitude that could be construed as in the-least way suggestive of dictation. Her only hope of success lies in showing such progressive practical faith in the effectiveness of the League as the safety of .the Empire will permit. Undoubtedly she has so far done more than any of the other Great Powers to promote the general acceptance of that faith.— America has done nothing.