FOR PEACE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 28 November 1927, Page 8

FOR PEACE

GREAT EFFORT BEING MADE NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT. STRIKING SPEECHES. London, Nov. 26. Disarmament has overshadowed every other subject in England for weeks. Lord Cecil’s statement in the House of Lords anent his resignation aroused some misgivings as to the Government’s programme and was largely responsible for Labour’s attack in the House of Commons. On the contrary, the reduction of the British cruiser programme finds a responsive echo in America, where it is regarded as a handsome gesture of conciliation, together with Lord Balfour’s declaration as regards the naval conference, that it was interrupted, not ended. The disarmament conference at Geneva in the coming weqk is expected to produce the plainest speaking yet heard in that connection.

It is more than a coincidence that the War Danger Conference, of the No More War Movement, has been held in London during the week. Prominent leaders did not disguise fears of the present drift towards war. Signor Nitti (ex-Premier of Italy) emphasised that, even allowing for the disarmament of the defeated nations. Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, Europe had 1,000,000 more armed men than before the war. Though Geneva discussed disarmament, arming continued and the spirit of peace did not exist. Though there was no hatred, people were dragged to war by hidden forces. 1935 THE CRUCIAL YEAR. M. de Jouvenal, in a message to the conference, said: “1 look forward to 1935 with dread. Those who conducted the peace negotiations built up a structure that would be good for 15 years, but what is 15 years? I repeat, 1935• is the crucial year. France will then have a minimum strength and will have lost the protection afforded by the occupation of the Rhine. 1 hope with all my heart that the League before 1935 will have gained the authority necessary to pre vent a recurrence of war. 1 beg to make, with the whole of my powers, an appeal to British friends for peace. America wanted to remain isolated in 1914, but could not; neither can Britain, separated by a narrow frontier channel, with London entirely at the mercy of air raids. Whether we want or do not want to be mutually concerned, we must be.” He concluded by expressing the opinion that in the event of another European war, America would not be on the same side as England. General von Schoenaich, described as the idol of German militarism or nationalism, said the next trouble would come from bio- owners of important raw materials. “When oil kings cannot agree,” he said, “then people must fight for them.” NETTI'S APPEAL. Signor Nitti, at Ae close of the conference last night, made a final appeal. He said: “It is for Britain to lead the

world, because she is sovereign among the nations, if you obey, the call and put all your force at the command of the common effort for peaoe, success is certain,” The closing scenes of the conference were lively. M. Edo Femmen, secretary of the International Federation, advocated that the last resource of active resistance to war should be a general strike. The consequence would probably be civil war, but it would be better to lose 100.000 men in that than millions in an international conflict. There was a roar of disapproval, to which he retorted: ‘ ‘lf the sacrifice of a few thousands would stop a great war it would be right.” There was a thunderous roar. “No!” “Never!” Several rose and left the hall protesting. General von Schoenaich madb some women gasp when he declared that after being 35 years a soldier, he also favoured the general strike. He said: “The next war will not be a soldiers’ war; it will be a war on women and children in London, Paris and Berlin. We must fight to the last against war.”—(A. and N.Z.) NO SHORT CUT TO PEACE. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT NOT FAVOURED BY COOLIDG’E Washington, Nov. 25. President Coolidge does not favour resolutions which are expected to be introduced in Congress proposing the outlawry of war and aiming to maintain peace by international agreement. Ho said: “I believe the suggested plans offer only illusory short cuts to the goal of universal peace. The proffered plans are impracticable and unlikely to succeed, because of the many obstacles they are bound to meet. There is no more short cut to peace than to salvation.” An arms and food embargo, he said, would involve other nations and lead to international recriminations that would draw the United States into conflict. The maintenance of the traditional attitude of non-interfer-ence, excepting in unusual circumstances. was the only sure wav for the United States to avoid embroilment in European affars and the constant danger of war. The President added: “The United States believes that whatever steps nre taken to preserve peace should be made individually, not noting''in concert with other nations. The United States will gain little hv agreeing to meet the other nations in dismissions on the avoidance of war.” Congress is expected, as a result of the President’s views to relegate the proposals to the background, and hopes for Senator Borah's, Mr. Capper’s nnd Mr. Burton’s resolutions providing for the outlawry of war nnd the establishment of an international tribunal are considerably lessened (A. and N.Z.)