OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 242, 21 June 1928, Page 4

OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

AMERICAN PEACE PROPOSAL. Academic writers on the art of war used to describe war as an act or instrument of policy. That was quite a good description, worthy of inclusion in a dictionary, but it belonged to the period before the Great War. The common attitude was to regard war as a respectable means of enforcing one’s policy at a pinch. The common attitude to-day is obviously to regard war as a very disreputable means of settling a dispute until every one of the many means of settlement provided by the League and by International Law have been tried.

It should also be remembered that, though there may be objections to vagueness as such, there are equally strong and perhaps stronger objections to precise definitions. It is because Sir Austen Chamberlain held these latter objections that he opposed any definition of an “ aggressor.” History shows that it is usually possible for a nation which is malignantly bent upon mischief to work up to a situation in which the letter of the law—when the law is very explicitly worded—will seem to be on its side and will put the nation nominally in the right, though according to the common sense of the whole world it is wrong.

There is no prospect at present of the United States joining the League, but here is a way to an almost equivalent result. If the British Government help the scheme to fruition their name will be blessed in history, but if they fail either through lack of enthusiasm, or through managing badly, though their intentions may be good, the whole cause of peace will be set back.—London Spectator.