The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1920. AGAINST NEUTRALITY.

Southland Times, Issue 18847, 12 June 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luc eo Non Uro. SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1920. AGAINST NEUTRALITY.

Humanity is a family and the world is a whole, if one portion of it is injured, the rest, cannot escape the consequences. Reduced to its essentials this is the starting point of an attack on neutrality by Luigi Carnovale in a pamphlet, which is in reality the reproduction of a chapter of a work by him defending the attitude taken up by Italy during the war. The pamphlet is published with the title ‘‘Only by the Abolition of Neutrality Can War Be Quickly and Forever Prevented.” It is a statement of the enormous power that can be wedded by' peoples who are determined that the strong shall not oppress the weak, by nations that are prepared to support their declarations against unjustified attack by the strength of their good right arms. M. Carnovale is not an ardent supporter of the League of Nations, and yet his whole argument is for human solidarity which the designers of the League hoped to secure as the hone and sinew of their organisation to prevent war. M. Carnovale argues with much force that since 149G 8.C., when the Amphictyones secured the first treaty known to us, treaties have not prevented war, and he regards the Treaty of Versailles, with its Covenant of the League of Nations, as nothing more than a repetition of the treaties of earlier days that have failed. If the League of Nations is considered as a scrap of paper, a mere statement of the authority of governments, it will prove a failure and a danger, but if the will of the peoples is behind it the League will become a power, a force that will accomplish that thing for which the author pleads, the abolition of peutrality, the committal of each nation to defend the family of nations from the greed of any member of it with all its might. It must not be thought that M. Carnovale is arguing in favour of war. He is not. Bui be regards the uncertainty as to how any particular country will view the quarrel between two others as a direct encouragement of armed invasion. He makes this perfectly clear: — If the government of Francis Joseph, for example, could have known in anticipation that the peoples of Europe, even

of the whole world, would rise tip and intervene promptly with till of the positive forces of their nations in defence of little -Serbia, the government of Francis Joseph, however powerful and arrogant, however much upheld by that military colossus, the German Empire, would never have dared to dictate to the little Balkan nation who was defending her own independence. It would not have had the insane iernerity to send to if in July, 1914, that ultimatum which unchained the most terrible inferno in (he world's history.

M, Carnovale might have recalled at the same time the appeal made by Russia to Britain to declare herself unequivocally as the supporter of France and Russia in the event of war. When a military alliance like that of Germany and Austria-Hungary set out on a bullying expedition the probable opposition is carefully weighed and as like as not mistakes such as were made in 1914 occur with fatal results. The author considers that if i(. were made clear that "in case.q of a purely humanitarian character -that is, where the intellectual, moral and economic elevation, justice, liberty, and the happiness of the people are involved,” the governments would put in action the military forces of the Ftute, the aggressive nation would hesitate before embarking in war. M. Carnovale’s solution is simply stated, if it is extremely difficult of accomplishment :

The people must have facts. They must, without distinctions, create among themselves a solid spiritual alliance (prodrome of their universal political union i ; and establish as a fundamental principle of justice, inviolate anti invariable, that when u controversy between (wo nations degenerates into war, each of the peoples not involved in the controversy so degenerated must a priori impose on their own government an armed intervention in favour of (lie weaker nation which one finds on (he side of reason. . . . . On the side of reason according to the judgment that springs spontaneously, free from preconceived ideas and passions: front free intelligence, from the candid conscience of the people themselves: above all, according to the natural guide of life which makes the cause of (he weak always beautiful, sacred and worthy of victory. Only in such a manner for the present, can one curb the aggressive mania of the stronger. Only in such a manner can wars he prevented.

His first sentence raises one of the greatest obstacles to his scheme: ‘'The people must have facts.” We are frequently told that facts are stubborn things, but we must also remember that they are extremely elusive, and that it is difficult, to ensure that the facts* fed to the peoples are not something else in disguise. We take it that the basis of M. Carno vale’s preventative measures'is that the weaker nation must always l>e sure of defenders; but it will always be hard to induce a people to go to war for a small nation merely because it i.s small. There must be some proof that injustice is being done, that right is with the weaker Stale, that, the powerful State has no excuse for its action. M. Carnovalc in putting that proposition to n.s actually states the. fundamental principle of a living League of Nations, that there shall be a tribunal before which inter-, national disputes may be argued and settled and that the aggressor shall have banded against him the military and economic strength of the collection of peoples represented in the League, It is precisely litis far-rcaching committal, this cession of the sovereign rights of u State to an international council that has caused much heart-burniug in the Lifted States and has given some senators arguments for the revival of George Washington's warning against entangling alliances. M, Carnovalc is certainly right when he reminds us that the international union of peoples, the “human solidarity” is the weapon that will end wa srb,ut the forging of that instrument must be a long process. One of the first steps in its manufacture must be the encouragement of a better understanding of nations other than our own. 'We are prone to view the acts of other peoples through the spectacles made by our own hands, and from t his distorted vision, which is really ignorance, springs most of our absurd conceptions. This acquaintance with the realities of other schemes of political and economic organisation, of other races should not- be confined to any section of the community or it can do no good. We may take up the past as an introduction to the present, but if we persist, with the past while failing to give full consideration to the present we can never advance to understanding, M. Carnovalc is a bitter opponent of the pacifist—the Conditional Neutral who will not fight till he is directly injured and the Absolute Neutral who stands for peace at any price. Both exert a considerable influence in (he world, and both contribute to the outbreak of the very thing that, they condemn —war. As we said before, M. Carnovalc i.s actually inconsistent in condemning the conception of the League of Nations while arguing for the declaration by each nation of armed interests in the doings of others, but his interesting pamphlet at least reminds us of what the designers of the league have already impressed upon the world, that the covenant should bind not governments but peoples. and to effect that we mast see that our governments do actually represent the peoples, that the democracies!)ave full power of expression and are capable .of fulfilling the duties of citizens of the world.