The Guardian AND EVENING STAR. FRIDAY, ABRIL 6th, 1923. LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 6 April 1923, Page 2

The Guardian AND EVENING STAR. FRIDAY, ABRIL 6th, 1923. LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Du hi. vo the late debiite in the House cf Commons tin the situation in the Ruhr several speakers criticised the Government for its refusal to invoke the Longue of Nations, and. indeed, many are conscious ol a feeling of disappointment at the failure of the League to intervene in the recurrent crises; which have agitated Europe ever since peace was signed. The League was born amidst golden anticipations, they say. What has it accomplished? Certainly it never professed that it would put an end to war, but its champions claimed that it would minimise the possibility of war. Not only did its signatories assure each other ol mutual guarantees, but Article 11 declared that it is “the friendly right of each member to bring to the attention of the Assembly , , , any circumstances whatever affecting iutornatioua! relations which threaten to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations on which peace depends.” Once that is done the machinery provided for by the covenant is set in motion, and it was hoped that in the calm dispassionate atmosphere engendered by the good offices of tne League the danger would he averted. How far lias the hope been fulfilled? Hero in the deadlock on tlie Ruhr is apparently a unique opportunity for the League to prove its value as an international solvent. Why dix's it not act ? What, in tact, has it to show for its three and a a half years of existence? The assembly has met thrice in conference, while standing committees have been in rnore continuous session. The League has levied an ever increasing contribution from its members. It has reminded mandatories of their obligations and has performed other services of a quasi-philanthropic, quasi-judicial character. Useful wrok, no doubt, but work which after all touches only minor questions. In the most vital issues, those of disarmament, the near East and reparations, the League seems to Lo helpless. Are we, then, to conclude that, while the League can do something in its sphere, this sphere is narrowly circumscribed, that the League is a sort of sublimated international postal union, whose members co-operate for their mutual benefit in matters of secondary importance but that where any conflict of interests occurs on a large scale, the League is powerless? If this view be correct the League has fallen far short of the ideal which its originators cherished. But the answer to those who argue in this sense, remarks a contemporary, is that they expect too much from the League, and that they entirely misconceive tie league’s func-

tiou. It is no part of the League’s duty to “wind up the war’’; that was for the Peace Conference ami the Supremo Council of the Allies to do. Tim League was to begin with a clean sheet : it was to deal with future contingencies unrelated to the Great War, The aim of the Treaty was to close onto and for all a tragic chapter in history, and to diminish the chance of war in days to come, bv eliminating the causes of war That it has not succeeded in this is now only too plain, but the League cannot bo required to assume the responsibility of clearing away the mess. M. Poincare, indeed, lias gone so far as to sav that nothing in the Treaty of Versailles can be referred to the League. Mr Lloyd George describes this statement as “amazing." but it is quit,: ill keeping with the utterances of President Wilson and others. The Longue was to start fair, unencumbered by the problems and perplexities of the past. It is the fashion now to attribute to the makers of the peace all manner oi sinister and malevolent motives. We prefer to believe that on the whole they were animated by an honest desiro for a reasonable and permanent settlement, but were overwhelmed by iho extraordinary difficulties presented by their task. However that may l-e, the troubles which have plagued Europe since the "nr - the periodical Irietimi between Italy and ,Jugo Slaviti, the I'ppcr Silesian dispute, the near Eastern question, the clash over repara-tions—-arc directly traeeal.de to the various treaties which have under-es-timated national prejudice and the lull of national prejudice and t! e lull of national sentiment, have over-estimated national resources, and have miscalculated the strength of the diirercnt racial elements in territories of mixed population. Since these are issues arising out of the war. and since their settlement is part and parcel of the liquidation of the war, the League inot called upon to interfere.