RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1928, Page 8

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

KELLOGG AND THE NEXT STEP, AMERICAN POSITION.

“Once war lias been renounced I cannot see how America can continue in isolation from any great peace movement.” This .vas an outstanding remark made by Lv C. C. Morrison, the editor of the Christian Century, who was speaking at a luncheon in the Hotel'Cecil, at which lie was welcomed to England by a gathering of distinguished friends of peace. It was in the Christian Century, one of the most vigorous of American religious’newspapers, that Dr Morrison and Mr Levinson—a wealthy lawyer in Chicago—first put forward the proposal for the renunciation of war, which has now been placed officially before the world by the Coolidge Government. The chief note in the speeches by English leaders was that the Kellogg Pact means that the United States is no longer standing apart from Whe forces in the world that are working in determination to bring war to an end, to quote the words of Sir Henry Linin', the chairman.

Lord Cecil said the response of the people of Britain to the Kellogg proposal was not in ■ doubt —they wei-e warmly, and even' enthusiastically, in favour of the idea. After every great war there had been a passionate desire on the part of those engaged in it to put an end to war, and the Holy Alliance at the close of the Napoleonic War was formed with that object. 'lne reason why the Holy Alliance broke down and became an instrument of tyranny was chiefly that there was no machinery to carry out its objects.

STARTING POINT OF NEW ; . EFFORT. The American pact, if it was generally accepted,’ \yonld definitely repeal the right to go to war, and in that way would provide an entirely new basis for the conception of international law. If it was generally accepted there woul never again be lurking behind every international negotiation the fear that if it produced less than this or that Power desired the right to go to war would remain. There was a danger lest, we should think that, having made the pact, that was all that was necessary. It must be the starting point of new efforts. It was little use taking away war unless something was put in its place, and we must go on to build the necessary structure for internatiory al peace. We must have arbitration; we must have disarmament, and some further provision for the punishment of law breakers.

Mr Amery, the Colonial Secretary, remarked that if the League had disappointed those who thought that its mere creation would bring about a new heaven and a neAv earth and put an end to national ambition, it had been a profound encouragement to those Avith more modest hopes, for it had worked ’steadily and usefully for the promotion of peace. The Avork done since the Avaion the lines of " strengthening the mechanism of peace Avas noAV to be folloAved by the American proposal,;which attacked the inner malady, of Avhich armaments were only a symptom, and called upon, the nations definitely not to embark upon any policy which might involve the use of Avar as the final means of carrying out national ambitions.

Dr Morrison ’said be rejoiced that the United States Avas at last in a cdoperative position with regard to peace. He was opposed to the entrance of the United States into the League. He realised,, that America had been in an uncomfortable position ” in relation Avitli the world pence movement, hut she Avas hoav in the forefront of a neAA r orientation of the movement towards peace. He thought that the effect of the acceptance of the Kellogg Pact Avould he that the attitude of the United States to ■ the League AA'ould have to be reconsidered.-

NEW.ERA OF CO-OPERATfON

Having used the sentence .quoted at the beginning, Dr Morrison said that tiie war ruled put of the picture by tjhe members oil' the League there would be sucn developments in public opinion in America that there would come about a new era of co-operation in working for peace. Outlawry of war must he followed by the construction of an institution of peace, and he thought that there would need to be an agreement among the nations to make real use of the International Court of Justice. While there was no legal opposition between the Kellogg Pact and the existing commitments under the League,they were morally incompatible —as one grew the other must decrease. He thought that Mr Kellogg did not intend to make any reservations even concerning the Monroe Doctrine, and if he had not specifically replied to Sir .Austen Chamberlain’s reservations it was because the reply was implicit in y<e second article of his original Note. Lord Parmoor said the Kellogg Pact meant co-operation, not only in mechanism, but in moral idealism. He had never seen any inconsistency between the real meaning df the League of Nations and th Kellogg proposals, which might be looked upon as an extension of the principles of the League by “ filling up the gap, as we put it in tins country.’' This was not the time to talk about reservations or limitations. The outlawry of war was thoroughly understood in Britain, and he thought public opinion was practically united in support of the proposals. There was heartielt gratitude that the United States and Britain could now co-operate in bringing about the .great change that was essential if our civilisation, was to endure and in-

termitional law to he the basis of peace and older instead of the excuse for war. ’ r’ The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a message of regret for absence, wrote that he was cordially in sympathy with the object of the luncheon, and that the weightiest voices in England were in harmony with the endeavour to renounce Avar. The Premier, the Lord Chancellor, and Mr J. K. Clynes also wrote expressing sympathy with the movement.