Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1938. MORALITY AND EXPEDIENCY.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 July 1938, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JULY 8, 1938. MORALITY AND EXPEDIENCY.

£JOME people of a simple and direct turn of mind are , finding fault with Britain’s current foreign policy on the ground that, although it is based on expediency and on an acceptance of what its supporters call realities, it is not giving the results such a policy ought to give. Critics taking this standpoint maintain that the foreign policy to which Britain is meantime committed is not serving its intended purpose of promoting appeasement in Europe and curbing the aggression of dictators, but is encouraging , dictators in present aggression and in sowing the seeds of future wars. The same matter is approached on a higher plane ,by the Archbishop of York, nine bishops, and other churchmen who have issued a statement in which they claim to represent a multitude of people who are anxious regarding the moral basis of British foreign policy and rearmament, which they declare has deteriorated owing to a failure to stand by the League of Nations.’ They do not dissent from Britain resorting to war in self-defence, including the safeguarding of the Empire, but are anxious lest Britain drift from moral principles and allow her actions to be guided by sheer expediency. Constrained as they are to admit that the outlook in Europe ■ and elsewhere is not, at a long view,-improving, defenders of Britain’s present foreign policy may contend that it is not so much one of expediency, as one of last resort. In support of that contention, those by whom it is advanced are able to point to the unsupported lead that Britain gave, during many post-war years, in a unilateral limitation of armaments and also to the efforts made by successive British Governments to marshal a and organise effective support for the League of Nations—the last of these efforts being made on the occasion of the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. It may be premature however, to assume that Britain is doing all that might be done to re-establish and safeguard peace. Her rearmament plainly is justified, but her. possession of great and increasing military power should rather assist than hinder her in gaining the 1 co-operation of other peace-loving nations in measures to make peace more secure than .it is., today. It is definitely open to question whether Britain is making full, use of the opportunities that are. open to her of taking action to safeguard peace. Early last month, for example, the United States Secretary of State (Mr Cbrdell Hull) made a speech which culminated in the following declaration:— There is desperate need in our country and in every country of a strong and united public opinion in. support of a renewal and demonstration of faith in the possibility of a world order based on law and international co-operative effort. When such public opinion has developed and when the momentous issue of today—the fateful decision as to whether relations, among nations shall be governed by armed force or by co-operation and order under law—is clearly understood and visualised, there will be no insuperable difficulty in finding acceptable ways and means of achieving the desired, end. Would it be unduly optimistic to regard Mr Hull’s address as virtually an overture to Britain and to other nations to combine in considering methods of establishing a reign of law in world affairs? As Mr Hull has observed, there is no insuperable difficulty in finding ways and means of achieving that end. It has been said with truth that the aggressor nations of the world are only enabled to pursue their aggression by engaging in extended trade with nations which condemn their aggression.. If the leaders of Britain and those of other nations intent on peace proclaimed openly their eagerness to reach agreement on a policy of refusing to supply to aggressors what have fairly been called “the raw materials of aggression”— metals, oil, coal, cotton and other commodities —the way would be opened to far more effective efforts to establish and safeguard peace than are being attempted today. Consideraotions of morality 'and expediency combine in recommending action on these lines, and the problems involved certainly are not more formidable than those that very probably will have to be faced if Britain continues her'present-policy of attempting to placate international criminals and the world continues its present glissade towards the abyss of war.