Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1938. ALTERNATIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 15 December 1938, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1938. ALTERNATIVES IN FOREIGN POLICY.

<*■ rTN his speech, reported yesterday, at the jubilee dimiei in London of the Foreign Press Association, the British Prime Minister (Mr Neville Chamberlain) said he had come to the conclusion that the only alternatives were to make up their minds That war was inevitable and to prepare for it, or to make r. prolonged e.ioi to eradicate the possible causes of war and try out personal contacts while pursuing rearmament for defence. At the most cursory view it is apparent that the alternatives stated by Mr Chamberlain are not distinguished as clearly as they might be. Both involve vigorous preparation for possible Avar 'Hie difficulty of distinguishing, in Mr Chamberlain s terms, between his so-called alternatives becomes stdl greater when it is considered that many critics of his foreign policy would deny emphatically, as Mr Eden has just done in the United States, that they think war inevitable, Some, at least, of the British Prime Minister’s critics think that war is more likely to result from the policy he has followed thus far in his dealings with the dictatorships than if Britain had simply announced, for example, on the occasion of the recent crisis, that while she sympathised with Czechoslovakia, she was not prepared to go to war on behalf of that country.

If it were possible to show, or to perceive, that Mr Chamberlain’s “prolonged efforts’’ had modified in any way the course of totalitarian aggression, the position would be different.- In fact, however, these “prolonged efforts’' appear to have amounted only to allowing the dictatorships Jo have their way. Not only has Germany gained possession of Sudetenland, buPthere is every indication that what is left of Czechoslovakia has now been subjugated quite as completely as if the Czechs had been overwhelmed in military conflict. Other small States are in a fair way to fall into the sarnie condition of servitude, or serfdom. It is suggested, N for instance, that Lithuania will seek safety by accepting German “protection.’’ Jn spite, too, of many British declarations on the subject of non-intervention and a settlement in Spain, Germany and Italy obviously are being allowed to do what they like in that warharried country, and the British Government, while denying that General Franco possesses belligerent_ rights, is merely “holding him responsible’’ for attacks on British ships in which a considerable number of officers and men have been killed or wounded.

It may bo said that, short of Britain going to war. events in any ease would have taken this course in Europe. Even if that be granted, account has still to be taken of the deplorable moral effect of continued friendly approaches by Britain to dictatorships pursuing, unchecked,'a deliberate policy ol aggression and provocation. Discussing the position and outlook from that standpoint, Herr C. 4. Ilambro, leader of the Conservative Party in Norway, said in a recent article, published in the “Sydney Morning Herald,’’ that anyone who attended the Assembly of the League of Nations in September of this year must have felt Ihe sinister depression that weighed upon the delegates, irrespective of their political opinions and sympathies.

Of course (Herr Hambro added) no sane .man wanted war. But how far shall any State be allowed to exploit this horror of war? Naturally, everybody is for 'peace. But peace does not necessarily, perhaps mainly, mean absence of war; And no lasting peace has ever been built on principles of violence, menace, or breach of promise. It was commonly said at Geneva:- "There will be no war as long as there remains a small State to be sacrificed.” But afterwards? What will the world be like? A distinguished representative of a small country said at Geneva: “Now we know how it is done. My State is so small that our suppression will not be worth even the cost of an air ticket to Berlin.”

In face of the dreadful state of affairs that obtains in Europe today, Mr Chamberlain's recital of things accomplished, in which he included the Munich agreement and the Anglo-German declaration, is singularly unimpressive.

The best feature of the British Prime Ministers latest speech is that in it he was much less yielding and much more assertive than in his previous development of the policy, of appeasement —so much so, indeed, that the dinner of the Foreign I’l ess Association was boycotted by the German Ambassador and German journalists in London when they had read advance copies of the speech.

Mr Chamberlain deplored the recent attitude ol the German Press, but declared himself nevertheless convinced that the British and German peoples wished never again to go to war with one another. Ho condemned the policy of domination in plain, though temperate terms and described Britain’s relations with France, founded on identity of interest, as being “so close as to pass beyond mere legal obligation.’’ The lastmentioned declaration, it mav he supposed, makes an end of some hopeful assumptions tha't have gained currency in Italy during the last lew days. Finally, Mr Chamberlain spoke in uncompromising terms of Britain’s obligations in the matter of her own defence, to ihe people throughout the Empire, and to her allies.

These obligations (he said) we must be ready to fulfil, and our preparations have now proceede I far enot gh for us to sr.y with confidence that we are in a position to do so.

’The note of warning is here sounded verv (dearly and unless affairs have progressed already Io a stage ai which warnings are a waste of breath if may be supposed that the British Prime .Minister’s words will make an impression in the quarters lo which they are addressed. The blunt intimation that Britain is ready to fulfil her obligations may prove to be a belter contribution lo peace than all that has lately been attempted in the cause of appeasement in Europe.