THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1909. IS IS RIGHT OR WISE?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3195, 21 May 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1909. IS IS RIGHT OR WISE?

Is it right—or wise—for a man when he is struck to strike ba~k? Is it right or wise for him when going nto rough and dangerous company to learn beforehand the arts of boxing or of jiu jitsu, so that he may guard himself from possible injury? And how about a nation? Should it ever strike back when it is robbed or assaulted? Should it prepare for that possibility by being vigilant about the efficiency and the size of both army and navy? Those who minimise the need for preparation seem to lay down two positions, and to imply two. Peace and good will, binding together a comity of nations, is the ideal of civilhed mankind. Towards that we are all moving. The ties of commerce and knowledge, of travel and literature, of religion and social ethics, are gathering the Western and "civilised'', nations into a unity never known before in history. The true way —or one of the true ways—to build up this unity is, so the argument runs, to refrain from panics and war scares, from suspicious words about our neighbours, and from aggressive words about ourselves. With these two positions all men of any wisdom musl surely agree. But the next two positions —the implied positions—are of a very different nature. Nations, it is suggested, should be careless, indifferent, easy-going about the state of their own armed strength, not knowing and not caring whether army or navy possesses the necessary strength, and the necessary efficiency to repel invasion. They should be trustful, and even credulous, about their neighbours' words and intentions and preparations. Whatever they see that neighbour do, they should think no evil. They should follow the vision of Isaiah and Micah, that "they snail beat their swords into nloughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither sha:l they learn war any more." And they are to put away from them the] vision of Joel—"Prepare ye this among the nations; prepare war; stir up the mighty men; let all the men of war come near, let them'come up. Beat your ploughshares into swords and your

pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say I am strong." But the first question is the previous question, a mere question* of wisdom and of the adaptation of means to an end. What is it that makes for peace—is it armed efficiency or helpless disarmaments? Look at the East fifteen years ago and to-day. Did the industral wealth of China, accompanied by its helpless state of disarmament, make for peace, or does the present armed efficiency of Japan make for peace? It may not be quite fair to compare nations with individuals. But if such a comparison be at all legitimate, we wish to point out that an efficient army and navy are merely a policeman "in excelsis." Those who protest j agains*- increased British armaments might object to this analogy. To them the armed strength of a neighbouring nation is only a policeman In excelsis, while the armed strength of ourselves is more like a swaggering and blustering pirate. To us it is the other way round. Our neighbour when armed cap a-pie seems the pirate; our own similar state of efficiency seems only that of the necessary and inoffensive police.