POST-WAR CONDITIONS.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1918, Page 4

POST-WAR CONDITIONS.

THE LEAGUE OF FREE NATIONS.

The opinions of Mr H. G. Wells are often irritating and expressed in a gratuitously offensive manner, but they make the reader think, and, while many will disagree with certain of the premises and conclusions in “ In the Fourth Year,” the book, says a reviewer, is a very interesting statement of the Allied war and peace aims, as understood by one 1 who represents a large body of liberal thought in Britain. Mr Wells believes that the war has brought a general clarification of ideas; he, for his part, in 1914, thought of it vaguely as a war that would end war, without knowing very definitely how it was going to do so. But now he has been able to resolve his theory into a positive formula; he is convinced that the Allies will have fought in vain unless the end of the war sees the establishment of a League of free nations. Much of the book is devoted to a discussion of the nature and functions of such a League. Mr Wells lays particular emphasis on the adjective “ free.” Member ship must be confined to responsible peoples who have the power to give effect to their will. “We know today,” he remarks, “ what is involved in making bargains with governments that do not stand for their people; we have had all our Russian deal, for example, thrust back upon our hands.” He will allow Germany a place in the League if she repents and if her representatives on the council are elected under democratic conditions. This concession to Germany is inspired, not by mere generosity and a spirit ot forgiveness, but by calculation. Whether we.like. it or not, says Mr Wells, we must accept the fact that presence in the League of free.nations would be of immense value in making the vvork of the League effective. The decision of peace or war rests with four Powers ; that is to say, “ there are only four Powers certainly capable at the present time of producing the men and materials in sufficient abundance to go on fighting.” These Powers are Britain, France, the United States, and Germany;

the rest fight either by their sanction or in association with one or other of them.

Mr Wells is alive to the practical difficulties in the realisation of the proposal. What, for instance, is to be the principle of representation ? It cannot be that of “ one State one vote,” for this would give the British Empire, with its population of lour hundred millions, halfoi: whom are literate, no greater weight than Bogota “ with a population of one million, mostly poets.” Neither can the principle be one ol population, for that would give a monstrous predominance to the illiterate millions of the East. What then is it to be? Mr Wells does not really answer the question, although he suggests that the League may grow imperceptibly in such a way as to solve all problems by a species of happy opportunism.. He sees the germ in the peace congress which will bring about the settlement of this war. At this many nations great and small will be represented ; certain neutrals can hardly b® denied the right to attend, because they will have claims to compensation for shipping lost and other violations of their neutrality. The issues to be disposed of are so immense that the congress will last lor a long time ; the world will grow accustomed to its sittings, and gradually, almost unnoticed, its nature and functions will be transformed into those of the League of Free Nations -of which Mr Wells dreams.

Membership ol this League will not involve only privileges and benefits; there will be corresponding duties, and these will almost certainly entail considerable subtraction's from the existing sovereign rights of a nation. The obligation to submit all disputes to arbitration carries with it the obligation not to prepare secretly or by subterfuge means which will enable a disappointed litigant to resist the council’s ruling by force. The corollary is that the League must have a vague, but nevertheless effective, power of interference in the internal affairs of its members. Mr Wells gives an illustration which shows how real this power would be : the League must exercise a censorship over the literature of each country, and suppress what is inflammatory or provocative to other nations ; if the League had been in existence 50 years ago, Treitsclike and Bernhardi would have been born to blush unseen. The League must also have the power to call nations to account for their trusteeship in their dealings with inferior races. In fact, Mr Wells is convinced that the League of Nations will prove incompatible with the existence of Imperialism and empires as we have them to-day. Mr Wells admits that on this account many will be reluctant to join the League, but, he asks, vvliat is the alternative ? Scientific invention lias destroyed isolation and made' war ever more dreadful; it will continue to do so. 111 a few years no European capital will be immune from an air raid conducted by hundreds, or even thousands, of large aeroplanes, and lasting weeks instead of hours. Already Gibraltar, symbol of Britain’s isolation, could be knocked to pieces by modern artillery from the liei gilts commanding it at long range. “ Existing States” have become impossible as absolutely independent sovereignties. The new conditions bring them so close together, and give them such extravagant powers of mutual injury, that they must either sink national prideand dynas ■ tic ambitions in subordination to the common welfare of maukiud, or else utterlv shatter themselves.”

1 ] Discussing the peace that is to ! come, Mr Wells proclaims that he is speaking for the man-in-the-street, , the average man, who has suffered and bled for the cause, and is re 1 solved to have a voice in the settle- ■ liient. These negotiations will be : like none that the world has ever I seen before. “ Apparently the ; preliminaries are to be stated and ' accepted in the sight of all mankind before even an armistice occurs.” The formulation of the Allies’ demands is not “to be done effectively and bindingly nowadays by official gentlemen in discreet undertones,” but with the lull knowledge and authority of the participating peoples, lor “ this Congress is too big a job for party politicians and society and county families.” As for- Germany, Mr Wells isnobelieverin half-measures. The Allies must go on fighting until Germany has been taught a lesson, and suffers a change of heart. But he deprecates the talk of “ revenge,” or “ an economic war after the wat,” which he thinks plays into the junkers’ hands, by holding the Germans together. He believes that the Allies should issue a clear statement of their war aims —which they have done —and should inform Germany that il she approaches the peace conference as a republic she will receive better terms. One doubts whether the latter proposal is either practicable or desirable. For one thing, would such an announcement ever reach the ears of the German people? Would they believe it if it did ? For another thing, though the Allies have no patience with Holienzollernism, its removal, to be of any permanent value, must be the result of a genuine change of national heart, not a bribe.