Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1939. SPEAKING SOFTLY TO AGGRESSORS.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 June 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1939. SPEAKING SOFTLY TO AGGRESSORS.

♦ TTNEASINESS is said to have been awakened in France by J the most recent statements of the British Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on the subject of European peace. According to a cablegram published on Saturday, the French Press emphasises the danger that the Nazis may believe Britain is weakening. It was added that official opinion m France was pessimistic concerning the chances of concluding a secuuty pae with the Soviet.

All the more since they follow closely on assurances by Mr Chamberlain that Britain is ready to make an anti-aggression agreement with Russia on a basis of full reciprocity, the speeches in. question may be expected to occasion serious concern in Britain and in other Empire countries as well as in France. The establishment of a strong peace front, which the aggressive dictatorships would be bound to respect, would give grounds for confidence and for hopes of maintaining peace. The latest utterances of the British Prime Minister and Foreign Minister seem much more likely to undermine confidence and at least to impede negotiations for the establishment of a peace front.

In an address to his constituents at Edgbaston, reported on Saturday, Mr Chamberlain said, in part:—

We are still ready to discuss round the table the claims of Germany or of any other country, provided there is a reasonable prospect ■of a real settlement being obtained by negotiation ana not by force. It is my policy to find out the possible causes of war and to try to remove them 1 and build up Britain’s strength, so that if it ever came to discussing terms of settlement no country would be able to'force us to accept terms dishonourable or dangerous to our vital interests.

That the aim of statesmen in all free countries should be to preserve peace, if that be humanly possible, goes without saying. This, indeed, is so obvious that it should hardly be necessary for Mr Chamberlain to harp, as he does, on his determination, as long as he has health and strength, to devote himself to the establishment of a settled peace.

On the facts in sight, an agreement between Britain, France and Russia to take united and concerted action against

any further aggression in Europe would establish the best possible guarantee of peace. Looking at the recent and current facts of European history, can it be suggested that Mr Chamberlain is contributing to the establishment of peace in reiterating, on behalf of Britain, a readiness to discuss round the table the claims of Germany or of any other country? The results of more or less recent talks round , the table with Germany and with Italy would be described much too mildly as deplorable, in their bearing on peace prospects in Europe and in other respects.

Within the last few days, for example, it has been admitted openly in Germany and in Italy—indeed it has been proclaimed —that while these countries were professing, in 1936 and afterwards, to combine with Britain, France and other Powers in a. policy of non-intervention in Spain, they were giving organised and powerful assistance to General Franco and his rebels. The results of Mr Chamberlain’s talks with the German Fuehrer at Munich and elsewhere .in September last also are written large. No one can doubt now that in his negotiations with Herr Hitler, the British Prime Minister was egregiously hoodwinked and deceived. ’

Nothing is established more clearly than that shameless duplicity goes hand in hand with aggression in the customary tactics of the German and Italian dictatorships. On the facts, Mr Chamberlain is making no hopeful contribution to peace in reiterating his readiness to discuss the claims of Germany or any other country. Surely, too, Lord Halifax conceded far more than was warranted when he said, in his speech on foreign affairs in the House of Lords:—

British policy seems to ourselves to be straightforward and plain, but it is perhaps not difficult to imagine how different it may appear to many thinking people in Germany.

Misapprehensions that may exist among “thinking people in Germany” are of small'importance at.present in comparison with the demonstrated determination of the German dictatorship to pursue its aims ruthlessly, with an absolute disregard of morality and good faith.

The speeches of the British Ministers have inspired the controlled German Press to some new efforts in abuse.'* Otherwise their effect in that country seems likely to be small. There is some reason to fear that the effect of these speeches in Russia may be even more damaging and unfortunate, where the establishment and safeguarding of peace are concerned, than it evidently is in France.

A FARMERS’ PARTY?

QNCE again it has been suggested that farmers should consider forming a political party of their own—the suggestion coming on this occasion from the Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union (Mr \V. W. Mulholland). While stating, in Dunedin a few days ago, that he still believed in the non-politi-cal character of the Farmers’ Union, Mr Mulholland said he felt that the whole matter of a farmers’ political party must be reconsidered in light of present conditions. These, he said, included “almost a clear-cut town versus country issue which 1 have never encountered before.”

A good many farmers as well as other people may think that the true remedy for this state of affairs is to do what may be done 1o abolish the town versus country issue, rather than to confirm and aggravate it by forming a farmers’ political party, which incidentally could hardly hope to become more than a minority force in national polities.

Over the greater part of the Dominion it has been recognised hitherto that there are serious and weighty objections to attempting to organise farmers on a party political basis. One of the principal of these objections has been and is that though ail farmers have common interests in that capacity, they are by no means all of one mind where party politics are concerned. In the Wairarapa and elsewhere, it has been urged by men of experience and judgment that the party political organisation of farmers inevitably would split them into opposed sections. That probably still holds good, in spite of detail changes that have occurred in position and outlook.

There is much to be said for the view that the only sound policy for farmers, where the welfare of their industry is concerned, is to seek the greatest possible co-operation with and from other sections of the community. Questions affecting Hie economic standing and welfare of farming industry of necessity are political, but it does not follow that they can be dealt with most effectively from a party political standpoint.

Addressing the Otago Provincial Conference of the Farmers’ Union, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Hamilton) advised farmers to organise ami act effectively, but not to form a third party —there were sufficient parties, he said, in the field now. This seems to be common sense counsel. The unwisdom of splitting political forces which might act in concert should hardly need to be emphasised and if in addition farmers found their own organisation as producers divided and weakened by party political action, their last state evidently would be worse than their first.