Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1939. A PEACE FRONT SETBACK.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 2 June 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1939. A PEACE FRONT SETBACK.

MUCH evidently depends on whether the rejection by. Soviet Russia of the latest Anglo-French security offer is merely a stage in negotiation, or is a point of decision. Nothing can be more certain than that an actual breakdown in the negotiations between the European democracies and Russia would be highly encouraging to the totalitarian States and probably would give the signal for new acts of aggression which would then not easily be defeated. Fortunately,, there appear to be fairly good grounds for the statement made in one of yesterday’s cablegrams that although the Soviet Foreign Commissar (M. Molotov) “indicated nonacceptance of the Anglo-French proposals,” he “left the door ajar.” Accepting at its face value Mr Chamberlain s recent declaration that Russian co-operation in building up a peace front in Europe was desired and was valued, there is no obvious reason why the democracies and Russia should not speedily reach complete agreement. If there is to be any mutual undertaking by <tlie democracies and Russia to combine in resisting further aggression it is not easy to see on what grounds exception can be taken to the basis stated by M. Molotov to be essential. The Soviet (he said) insisted on three points in its negotiations with Britain: Firstly, that the pact must be of an exclusively defensive character; secondly that it must guarantee all countries, without exception, on the western borders of the Soviet Union, thirdly that it must be a concrete agreement for assistance in tne event of future attacks. In light of the simple fact that any violent extension of the German hegemony in Europe has constituted and will constitute a threat to general European peace and security, the conditions laid down by the Soviet Foreign Commissar might very reasonably have been insisted upon by Britain and France as well as by Russia. Evidently no hopeful contribution would be made to the establishment of peace and security in Europe by intimating, in effect, that totalitarian aggression in some areas would be resisted unitedly by the democracies and Russia, but that in other areas there would be no such united resistance. This extraordinary policy would almost amount to mapping out a path by which Herr Hitler and his associates might .hope to extend' their conquests against minimum opposition and with maximum hopes of results satisfactory to themselves. While the British Government appears to be halting strangely in its negotiations with Russia, Mr Anthony Eden and Mr Winkton Churchill have both spoken strongly in favour of a. defensive alliance with the Soviet. Mr Churchill has declared himself unable to understand the objection to making an agreement with Russia in the broad and simple form proposed by that country, and in one of his latest references to the subject said further: “I don’t see what is wrong with an alliance to resist further aggression.” It is admittedly true that an alliance on these lines will involve Britain in heavy commitments, but io a very great extent these commitments have been accepted already in the guarantees given to Poland, Rumania and Greece, and in the agreement concluded with Turkey. The two last-mentioned countries no doubt may be regarded as lying within the ambit of British naval power, but only somewhat limited meaning evidently can be attached to a British guarantee to Rumania, or even to Poland, in the absence of a defensive alliance with Russia. The essential demand of the situation is the development of a peace front which will discourage further aggression by Germany and Italy, now joined formally in an alliance which M. Molotov fairly described as being fundamentally of an aggressive nature, or if the worst comes to the worst will provide the means of defeating aggression should it be attempted. The essence of the matter is organisation to resist totalitarian aggression. Whether aggression is to be resisted with this or that small country selected by the totalitarian Stales as their next victim appears to be an'altogether secondary consideration. Not improbably the fate of modern civilisation depends upon effective action being taken in the near future to re-estab-lish at least, a nucleus of the organisation for collective security the League of Nations was intended to become; The Russian proposals appear to be entirely consistent with the revival and strengthening of the League as an effective agency in international affairs, and only about ten days ago, at Geneva, Lord Halifax and JI. Bonnet emphasised the continued loyalty of Britain and France to the League of Nations. At the moment the difficulty is, as it has been for some time past, to understand why Britain should be hanging back from an effective defensive alliance with Russia, apparently on grounds of mere secondary detail. One of yesterday’s cablegrams stated that France does not object to aiding the Baltic States provided aid is requested. If Britain is like-minded, agreement should be within easy reach. If it is reached, no doubt it will be the firmer and more dependable for difficulties and impediments having been thoroughly examined and dealt with, but the moral effect of a continuation of the present delays would be rather damaging.