Europe’s Steady Advance on Path to Peace

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 152, 17 September 1927, Page 12

Europe’s Steady Advance on Path to Peace

Statesmen’s Faith in Work of League of Nations

AN INTERNATIONAL FACT

War ami peace, Soviet Russia, the League of Nations, the attitude of Europe toward A ncrica, end the prospect of a conflict between the fast and the West, were discussed bp Lord Robert Cecil and Lord Reading in interviews I hod with them during a recent visit to Lon~ don sags Herman Bernstein, in the “New Tort Times."

“There are still centres of disturbance in the world,” said Lord Robert Cecil, who was Great Britain's representative in the League of Xations. “But it is evident that progress has been made since the (mi of the World War. Slow progress, but progress nevertheless. "The danger of war lies in fear and in excessive nationalism. And as some countries are recovering economically from the convulsion of the war, they are indulging in excessive nationalism.

“There are three currents in Europe, I might say in the world.

Perhaps they" alway s existed, but they are more accentuated to-day. First, the current of nationalism —of autocracy, of bureaucracy; second, the current of revolution, and, third, the current of world progress, of order. The last of these is best typified In England, w lere all parties and factions believe in progress and order. You ban place the various countries into these three categories without difficulty THE STRENGTH OF THE LEAGUE “The League of Nations is now recognised. it is an international fact. We do not have to explain any longer what it is. It has already done much for the restoration of peace, or of what you Americans call normality. “The healthiest sign about the League is 1 hat, whatever the policies of the various nations may be, when their representatives come together in the League they undoubtedly manifest a genuine desire for peace, for cooperation. The recent economic conference in Geneva was another healthy and hopeful sign in the direction of better understanding among nations. “Ws have already made some prog-

ress along the lines of disarmament, and with more luck we expect to accomplish much more in the near future. It is fear more than greed that stands in the way of disarmament. But we must make a real start, and such a start will pave the way for more rapid progress in disarmament, because it will allay this fear.” SOVIET RUSSIA

Concerning Bolshevism, Lord Robert said: “In her tenth year, we find Soviet Russia in a complete economic collapse. Her political collapse is not quite complete. And yet I would welcome Soviet Russia in the League; of Nations to-day, even after the rupture of commercial and diplomatic relations between England and Russia. If I were a Russian, I would consider the entry into the League as one of the wisest and best steps for R.ussia. From a viewpoint of Soviet Russia, the League would be the most effective medium where she could express herself among the family of nations. This would also be helpful in restoring peace in the world. “Britain’s recent break with Soviet Russia will not lead to any serious complications. It certainly will not lead to war. There are no signs that any of the smaller States will be drawn into a conflict with Russia—and we want no war with Russia. “Russia will recover in the same proportion as she abandons the original programme of Communism, and she will fail in the same proportion as she adheres to the original Communistic programme. Russia is the only country in the world to-day that wants revolution in other lands.” “Do you believe there is danger of a conflict between the two civilisations, that of the East and of the West, in the near future?” “There is no danger of any such war,” replied Lord Robert. “The interests of China and the interests of India, for instance, are not identical. China is a 3 unlike India as India is unlike Europe. There is no unity of interests in the East. And there are no signs of any clanger of war.”

EUROPE DOESN’T HATE AMERICA

One frequently hears that Europe 4 hates” the United States. Lord Robert Cecil denies that such is the case.

“Do not believe any of the stories about Europe’s hate for the United States,” he said. “There is m truth in them. I remember I was told by many people some time ago that England was most hated in the United States. I doubted it and said frankly that I didn’t believe it. Later, I convinced myself that I was right and my informants were wrong. It was fashionable for a time to attack England in paragraphs in the American Press, but it; was a short-lived fad. Now it is fashionable to write in America about Europe’s hawed for the United States. That is also a passing fad. It is unwise to take it seriously. For there is no truth in these stories. At any rate, I can assure you that there is not the slightest basis of fact in any statement that the United States is disliked in England.” GERMANY FOR PEACE

Regarding Germany, Lord Robert said

“The present German Government is sincerely co-operating with us for peace. It is pursuing a correct policy and is very helpful. I feel certain that there will be no complications as a result of Germany's attitude to Soviet Russia.” '

Lord Reading, the former Viceroy of India, answering a question as to how he viewed the world 13 years after the outbreak of war, said;

“The longer the League of Nations exists the better are the opportunities for mutual understanding among the nations, and the slimmer the chances for war. I do not mean particularly this league. I mean any league in which nations discuss their disputes in conference. I believe that considerable progress has already been made toward such better understanding since the end of the World War. It has been slow progress, it is true, but perhaps this slow progress is more useful than more energetic movements would have been. “I can readily understand France.

There are some people in America and here who are inclined to criticise the French policy. But we should realise that the position of France is quite different from ours. She cannot feel at ease unless she is absolutely convinced that no danger is threatening her. And she must be convinced by actualities, not merely by treaties. And then she has to accustom herself to her new conditions.”

Lord Reading was asked whether he regarded Fascism as a menace to peace. “I will not criticise any other Governments,” he replied. “But I can assure you that here Fascism is impossible. The British are a politicallyminded people, law-abiding, orderly. They have a sense of respect for the law, which has been developed as a result of centuries of orderly government. The general strike here showed con-

clusively the temper of the people of England. I venture to think that in no other country could such an event have ended as peacefully as it has in England. Not even :in the United States. Men and women were working for orderliness, and union leaders also exerted a tremendous influence, so that the situation did not become uncontrollable at any time.” CLASH BETWEEN EAST AND WEST Regarding the prospects of a clash between the civilisations of the East and of the West, Lord Reading said: “I do not agree with those who believe that a clash between the East and the West is coming. First of all, it is impossible to speak of the East as of a unit. There are so many factions there, so many conflicting interests, that the East could not unite for war against the West. Take India, for instance. The factions there are numerous, the differences between the Hindus and the Moslems are serious. In China, too, there are various factions that could hardly be unified. Certainly, I foresee no such war in the near future. Again, I say, the longer the League of Nations accustoms people to settling international disputes in conference, the more remote the danger of new wars.”

Lord Reading then outlined his views concerning the severance of relations with Soviet Russia. “I believe that the Government of Great Britain was fully justified by the facts to have taken the step with regard to Soviet Russia. The Government found enough in the Arcos raid to justify the break. But it was not wise to go to the full extent of breaking completely with Russia. It is true that the document sought by the Government was not found in the Arcos Building. It was as if a policeman, believing that a stolen article was in a certain house, broke into the house, and did not find it there, but instead found a murdered woman. “The question is, Should he disregard the murdered woman because he

didn’t find the stolen article for which he was searching? The British Government found in the Arcos raid something worse than the stolen document. And yet I believe that it was unwise to sever diplomatic-relations with Russia. We have known all along that Soviet Russia had been violating her agreement with us. We have known it for years. We should have abrogated the commercial treaty under which Soviet Russia ejoyed here special privileges, but we should have continued diplomatic relations.

“Nothing is gained by breaking with Soviet Russia completely, and it may prove very dangerous because it is hard to foretell the consequences of the step.”