Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1931 THE BASIS OF PEACE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 5 January 1931, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1931 THE BASIS OF PEACE

NOW that the New Year has dawned, the inquiry will be, “What will it produce?” This question will be asked primarily in reference to economics, since everywhere the cry is of “hard times, but it will also be-asked in regard to the maintenance of peace in the world. There meets periodically in London p. society, of which Mr H. G. V eils, Professor Gilbert Murray, and Mr Wickham Steed, ex-editor of the London “Times,” are members, and the object of which is to ban war as a means of settling international differences. Recently the society met to discuss “The Strategy of Peace,” on which occasion Mr 11. G. Wells spoke somewhat despairingly of the success of the work of himself and of his colleagues, in the direction indicated. Among other things, the author of “The Outline of History” is reported to have said that he devoted 200 days of hard work every year to attacking the war system, and added :

I have ruined a good second-class reputation as a novelist by that occupation. It has led reviewers to describe nie as a propagandist. If 1 wrote a poem about a skylark,, they would somehow discover propaganda in it. . . . Half the young people who went to see “Journey’s End” did not come away horrified. A lot of them are finding Jife rather dull. These young men are not going to dislike the beginning of the next war. .

Mr Wells declared it as his opinion that “half the men under twenty-five in England, France and Germany find a tremendous fascination in war.” Mr Wickham Steed endorsed the views of Mr Wells, and declared that “arguments based upon the horrors of war have begun to pall; they are not far from being boring. I think we want to get a good deal of deviltry into this peace campaign.” Professor Murray’s contribution to the debate was a f° r greater unity among those working in the cause of peace, and he added, “.Reformers are apt to differ among themselves, and perhaps it is true that pacifists are unusually pugnacious.” These well-meaning men do not seem to have much faith in such instruments as the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Peace Pact as means for the preservation of peace and, in a sense, perhaps they are right, but, in another sense, they possibly are wrong. Of course nothing can prevent a nation, bent on going to war, from committing a breach of 'international peace. But, if the Peace Pact and the League’s Covenant mean anything, it seems highly probable that such a nation would be handled so roughly as to cause it to repent the day when it decided to choose the arbitrament- of the sword instead of that of the World 'Court. The League possesses all tlie machinery necessary for dealing effectually, by the exercise of force or otherwise, with any recalcitrant member nation which should decide to break its pledges by engaging in a war of aggression. Of course, in putting such machinery in motion, the League would be testing its fabric, but wo see no reason for doubting that the response of its members would be in conformity with their promises to assist the League’s Council in upholding the cause of the aggrieved nation which applied for protection against the aggressor. Of course the scope of the war would thereby ho increased, but the effect should he salutary and its duration shortened. The lessons of the World War may, or may not, be lost on the young people referred to by Mr Wells and his fellow-pro-

pagandisls, but we are sure that they have not been lost on the millions of those soldiers who survived its horrors, or upon the statesmen responsible for the destinies, of the great European nations, or those who form the Council of the League of Nations. Of course it would bo regrettable if the League were forced to put its Covenant into operation, but it would be more regrettable if a bullying and aggressive nation or set of nations were to set Europe by the ears, as Germany and Austria did in 1914. It is a pity that Mr Wells’s work as a pacifist should have ruined, as he says, his reputation as a novelist. “The War Office is ready,” he said to his fel-low-pacifists, “but your movement merely meets and talks.” It is as well that tiie War Office is ready, for if it and similar War Offices of the nations of the League were not ready, what means would there be of restraining and punishing an aggressive nation which determined to make war?

Signor Mussolini’s New Year’s broadcast- should reassure those who tremble lest the peace of Europe may he broken. The Duce is usually regarded as a stormy petrel, and bellicose speeches delivered by him a few months ago, at Florence and other places, certainly gave colour to the opinion that he was ready and willing to make war, at the slightest provocation. Now, however, he declares that he will “never make war unless he is first seized by the throat,” and intends “to lead a vigorous campaign for world-peace.” Ho adds:

llow could I, who served in the ranks and saw war in its most horrible form, launch a- whole nation into the horrors of another conflict?

What, then, is the meaning of the apparently contradictory statements of the Italian Dictator, who at one time breathes fire-and-brimstone, and at another eschews all idea of belligerency? We think it is that when he was speaking at Florence, oil the occasion referred to, lie was speaking to France, whereas, when lie broadcast his New Year’s speech in English, he was speaking to the English-speaking nations. But, in any case, he lias now definitely pledged himself not to he the aggressor in making war. France’s interests are all on the side of peace: she is never likely to make war on Italy, since all her desire is to maintain the status quo. Therefore, with Italy’s Dictator determined to maintain peace, and France’s best interests being opposed to war, the cause of peace in Europe should be greatly strengthened.