The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1919. IS THE PEACE TREATY WEAK?

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10277, 12 May 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MAY 12, 1919. IS THE PEACE TREATY WEAK?

The Hon. Mr Massed decidedly thinks that the Peace Treaty has many weaknesses. These he seems to consider dangerous, hut after some hovering to and fro he does not descend in his explanation of the Treaty on the side that holds fatal the weaknesses he has pointed out. He leaves the danger question, in fact, under the protection of Allied goodwill, whfbh is.only;another way of saying that -this is: a peace to men of goodwill, and that the object of the arrangements made is to ensure the survival of goodwill among the men concerned, in spite of ail possible storms of jealousy, self-interest and misunderstanding. Now what-da* couM b'e-said about the Treaty? The Treaty is a new departure which proposes to revolutionise the international relations of the world for the better, and a new departure of such vital importance must necessarily, after laying down genera! principles, leave a large portion of the details for toter,**A m some case* gradual, «fl M 1 tW mJre ? I not in human power to do mo .if the statesmen concerned were all P™ pnets orth* highest order and aspired it would even then be impossible t ' *v,„m tn have done more. necessary adjustments--of .points » on necessary ought h g a£ S b£n h don V e e ?o minimise the adding t prm«r£. u h}e arrant r a 'thinks that this division of labour rmild have been secured, his opinion .Entitled to great weight. He was beIhind the scenes from first to last, and fa familiar with the pros and cons ot the cese he has put forward. Ontn» other Und. however *«"*"**£?£.. sev or any eye-witness with the same nerval experience may be, the range of the subjects before the Conierenc* was so vast that one may be permitted to doubt the soundness of any particular conclusion' arrived' at. 'l'no whole business was one vast mass or possibilities, on which opinions even or those at closest range may differ. As a matter of faat, it is obvious that opinions have differed" at this closest range. The majority has taken the courso which Mr Massey declares was wrong. They have presented the Treaty, which attempts to do both things—peace with Germany and the settlement tho other Imperial ruins—at once. That means that, having considered the merits all round, and allowed full value to the course of events, the majority has concluded that if the problem had been divided between two settlements, the Peace Conference would have undergone the fate of the man who falls between two stools. Tho majority has decided that if both parts of the problem were not simultaneously brought within the nearest - possible distance of solution, and rapidly, both would have become insoluble. The presentation of the Treaty is a proot that the insido knowledge of the majority of those behind the scones compelled them to decide quickly' how •much of both solutions they would adopt, leaving the balance of each to be worked out according to approved lines by recognised authorities. Obviously the/ thought that the general situation was tpo shifty and too uncertain to permit of any further.-delay. Wo must conclude that they decided to adopt ionic solution rather than allow the whole problem to fall into chaos under tho pressure of active interests growing daily moro clamorous, and approaching daily nearer to the region <if passionate unreason. • President Wilson, Mr Lloyd George 4 M. Clemen-

ceau—the "Big Three"—are for the [course adopted. Mr Massoy is against it. Signor Orlando, moreover—whoso addition to the others made them till the- Flume dispute the "Big Four"— has, if recent indications are correct, now joined tho "Big Thrse," troih whom ho was only divided by the Fiuino question, for he was in agreement as to the scope of tho Treaty. Mr Massey is therefore one inside witness against four with the same advantage. Without any disrespect for Mr Massey's judgment, tfce world can safely say that.it prefers the judgment of tho icur foremost statesmen in the world. ''..'.'

After all, as Mr Masscy himself points out, the thing that matters most —tho disarmament of Germany, the head and front, the inmost soul and driving power of the ovil combination now in ruins—has been done, and done well. There will bo nothing, therefore, to back any ill-will that may threaten the general goodwill necessary for the adjustments which the Treaty leaves to the future. Germany, moreover, is not made a, party to tho League of Nations, and is not to be a disturbing .element. She may be admitted after paying whatever reparation may bo exacted. That ought to make her favourable to such payment. To evade payment, as Mr Massoy suggests may be possible, by taking advantage of want of definiteness' in the terms, would not bo to Germany's interest. To rej sist payment by force would bo impossible for the obvious reason that disarmament has' left hcr.no force. To threaten the alternative of Bolshevism is against the proved fact that German soil irill not grow tho Bolshevik plant. It is, besides, absurd, for if Germany elects' to starve, Bolshevism —what, remains of it in Germany—must starve too. Germany has only logic to trust to. Tho premise of tho logic of facts is that Germany is the beaten aggressor. That all Germany understands that logic the shameful Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest prove. To this proof there are many additions of German declaration about these treaties, amongst them one that the humiliation of Bucharest was nothing to tho humiliation the Central Powers would impose on the Entente nations. To this logic of facts must be added the fact that Germany is powerless. Germany will agree to pay, and when Germany tries to evade, and she will certainly make the attempt, she will be compelled to follow the course dictated.