The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1922. BRITAIN’S ALTRUISM.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 October 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1922. BRITAIN’S ALTRUISM.

The remarks made by Mr. Bonar Law, in his recent letter to the London Times, regarding the position of affairs in the Near East, furnish material for nineh thought and discussion He asserts that the burden of solving the tangled problem should not fall on the British Empire alone, for the reason that the task is not specially Britain’s interest, but hutnanity’s interest, and he adds that “Britain, for financial and social reasons, cannot act as the world’s policeman.” He also considers that if France is not prepared to help, Britain had better imitate the United States, and restrict her attention to her own Imperial affairs. Admirable sentiments such as these offer no just ground for refutation. It is only when we come to realise the full extent of Britain’s altruism that it is possible to comprehend how inevitably Britain has become involved in international affairs, not only by reason of her vast and far-flung Empire, but on account of her policy in championing the cause of the weaker nations and the interests of humanity. Britain long since absorbed the ethical principle of altruism, which makes the good of others the paramount end of human and national action. From an academical point of view it. can be argued that altruism cannot be an exclusive principle in ethics, since the individual—or the nation—can h’ardly be ignorant of his own good, so that altruistic actions are capable of being closely connected with egoistic motives. The same law that applies to individuals is equally binding upon nations. The first question that arises in connection with Britain’s altruism must necessarily concern the reason why the country has, in • a manner of speaking, adopted the role of guardian of civilisation and the interests of humanity throughout the greater part of the world. There can be little doubt that the acquisition of India, and the gradual growth of the federation of peoples known as the British Empire, is mainly responsible for Britain’s policy, because there are few countries that do not at some point or another directly or indirectly impinge on some portion of ‘the Empire. Moreover, Britain has been called upon to govern people of various colors and creeds, and- has taken them under her wing to expand their growth and development. That process has engendered sympathy for the oppressed, irrespective of creed, color or nationality, and she has done battle on more than one occasion for the weak against the tyranny of the strong, and without the shadow of a thought as to ultimate gain. Take, for instance, the case of India, and the first fact of importance is that it was Britain’s struggle with the French in India for influence over the native princes that led, step by step, to the establishment of the British Empire in India, and this movement was brought about primarily in the interest of traders—the' East India Companysome two hundred years ago. The possession of India entailed on Britain infinite responsibilities which affected her relations with Turkey, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Russia, Persia, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and even Germany, while to-day the effect is seen in the necessity for securing a permanent peace between Turkey and Greece. It seems like the irony of Fate that at the present time France should be expected to aid Britain in preventing trouble in India by appeasing the Turks, yet such is the ease. The question has been

asked: Why should Britain ex- ; pend her resources merely to con-| trol such sources of trouble as India, Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia, or, as Mr. Bonar Law puts it: To act as the world’s policeman? It is the bull-dog tenacity of Britain which explains the apparent riddle. Having put her hands to the plough, there is no turning back. Humanity’s interests have become the special care of Britain, just as Britain itself became tlfe harbor of refuge for all oppressed' and distressed peoples. Unhappily, it is not possible in these days to carry out the principles of altruism in regard to nations without having to pay the piper, and the intense stress of the times strongly accentuates the sacrifices entailed. Possibly some would prefer a new and more selfish policy like that of the United States, leaving Britain to confine her attention to her own Imperial affairs. Britain has chosen the higher and nobler part, nor could she do otherwise without loss of mana. It may be that some of the units of the Empire will be inclined to take a different view because of their failure to worthily appraise Britain’s altruism. Britain would infinitely prefer to be on friendly terms with all the nations, but she is not afraid to stand alone in championing the cause of humanity and the advancement of civilisation.