Fear for the World

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 213, 28 November 1927, Page 9

Fear for the World

MORE WAR BANKRUPTCY Disarmament Appeal By Cable.—Press Association. — Copyright. LONDON, Saturday. WHILE M. de Jouvenel, the former French delegate to the Council of the League of Nations, is forecasting a war in 1935, Sir George Paish, the eminent economist, speaking at Oxford, said the whole world is drifting into bankruptcy. The breakdown of trade and credit would come in the spring of 1928, he says, unless the nations acted quickly.

THE nations were putting up huge - 1 tariff barriers to prevent the purchase of goods outside their own countries. As a result they were finding a difficulty in selling their own goods in foreign markets. Another message says that the question of disarmament has overshadowed every other subject in Britain Cor weeks. Viscount Cecil’s statement in the House of Lords on the reasons for his resignation has aroused some misgivings as to the Government’s programme and was largely responsible for the Labour Party’s attack in the Commons. On the other hand, the reduction of the British cruiser programme finds a responsive echo in America, where it is regarded as a handsome gesture of conciliation, together with Earl Balfour’s declaration regarding the recent Naval Arms Limitation Conference that it is interrupted and not ended. The conference on disarmament at Geneva ! the coming week is expected to produce the plainest speaking yet hear-’ in th t connection. It is more than a coincidence that the conference of the No More War movement has been held in London during the week. Prominent leaders did not disguise their fears of the present drift toward war. Signor Francesco Saverio Nitti, a former Prime Minister of Italy, in a speech to the conference in Westminster Hall, said that, even allowing for the disarmament of the defeated nations, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, Europe had 1,000,000 more armed men than before the war. Although at Geneva they had discussed disarmament, the spirit of peace did not exist. Even though there was not hatred, people were dragged to war by hidden forces. DREAD PREDICTION M. De Jouvenel, the former French delegate to the League of Nations Council, in a message to the conference, said: “I look forward to 1935 with dread. Those who conducted the peace negotiations built up a structure that would be good for 15 years. But what is 15 years? I repeat, 1935 is the crucial year. France will then be at her minimum strength and will have lost the protection afforded her by the occupation of the Rhine. “1 hope with all my heart that the League, before 1935, will have gained the authority necessary to prevent a recurrence of war. I beg to make an appeal, with the whole of my poor powers, to my British friends for peace. “America wanted to remain isolated in 1914, but she could not. Neither can Britain be isolated, separated as she is by the narrow frontier of the channel, with London entirely at the mercy of air raids. Whether we want or do not want to be mutually concerned, we must be.”

after 35 years as a soldier he also favoured a general strike. He said: “The next war will not be a soldiers’ war; it will be a war on women and children in London, Paris and Berlin. We must, fight to the last against war.” —A. and N.Z. OUTLAWRY OF WAR COOLIDGE NOT IN FAVOUR “ILLUSORY SHORT-CUT” WASHINGTON, Saturday. The President, M r. Col I idge,.does not favour the resolutions which are expected to be introduced into Congress, proposing the outlawry of war and the maintenance of peace by international agreement. THE President said: I believe the suggested plans offer only illusory short cuts to the goal of universal peace. The proffered plans are impracticable and unlikely to succeed, because of the many obstacles they are bound to meet. There is no more a short cut to peace than to salvation. The proposed embargoes on arms and food in case of a war would be liable to involve the United States in disputes with other nations, and to lead to international recriminations which would draw the United States into a conflict. The maintenance of our traditional attitude of non-interference with foreign nations, except in unusual circumstances, is the only sure way for America to avoid an embroilment in European affairs, and to avoid the constant danger of war. INDIVIDUAL STEPS The Government the United States believes that whatever steps are taken to preserve peace should be made individually, and not by acting in concert with other nations. The United States would gain little by agreeing to meet other nations in discussions on the avoidance of war.

In Congress it is expected that the result of the President’s views will be to shut into the background the proposals made, and hopes for the various resolutions set down by senators, including Mr. W. E. Borah, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, providing for the outlawry of war and the establishment of an international tribunal, are considered lessened by his statement. —A. and N.Z

Signor Nitti concluded his speech by expressing the opinion that in the event of another European war, America would not be on the same side as Britain. “DANGER FROM OIL KINGS” General von Schoenaich, who is described as having been the idol of the German militarist press during the war, said the danger did not come from German militarism or nationalism, but froi the big owners of important raw materials. “When the oil kings cannot agree,” he said, “then other people must fight for them.” Signor Nitti at the close of the conference to-night made another final appeal. He said: "It is for Britain to lead the world, because she is sovereign among the nations. If you obey the call and put all your forces at the command of the common effort fer peace, success is certain.” GERMAN GENERAL’S IDEA The closing scenes of the conference were lively. M. Edo Femmen, the secretary of the International Federation, advocated that the last resource of active resistance to war should be a general strike. The consequence would probably be civil war, but it was better t«- lose 100,000 men in that wav than millions in an international conflict. There was a roar of disapproval, to wh'-h M. Femmen retorted: “If the sacrifice of a few thousands would stop a great war it would be right.” There was a thunderous roar of “No, never!” Several people rose and left the hall as a protest. General Von Schoenaich made some women gasp when he declared that