PREVENTING WAR

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 6 August 1929, Page 2

PREVENTING WAR

Discussing the American interpretation ot freedom of the seas as "the unrestricted right to trade with all belligerents" in time of war, Mr R. L. Buell, wiiting in the "New Republic," contends that, since* both the League Covenant and the anti-war pact have fundamentally altered the pre-war status of neutrality "by the very nature of things the United States cannot insist upon an unqualified right to trade with a State that has flagrantly violated the anti-war pact." He proceeds: "The real problem is how to bring about the co-operation of the United States in preventing any State from violating the anti-war pact.

. . . Surely the best means of preventing war is not in punitive machinery but in preventive measures of a conciliatory, consultative character. The United States learned the value of this type of machinery when, a few months ago, the Pan-American Arbitration Conference, acting jointly with the League Council, stopped a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. Despite this incident, the United States still remains aloof from any form of organised and continuous conciliatory machinery. If the United States should agree to consult with members of the League, if the United States should agree to throw the weight of its prestige on the side of the League Council in causing States to find a pacific settlement of their differences, it is doubtful whether war would take place, and whether the contingencies envisaged in this sea-law' controversy would arise. This form of consultation between the United States and the League could take place without the United States becoming a member of the League. It could take place without committing the United States to any form of action; joint or otherwise, against an aggressor. Consultation with a view to .the prevention of war will protect American commercial interests more effectively than belated efforts to protect these interests after war breaks out."