EUROPE’S FUTURE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 8 June 1940, Page 9

EUROPE’S FUTURE

CONFEDERATION THE KEY LORD CECIL’S PLAN. MOVE TO RESIST AGGRESSION. We believe that aggression is an international crime threatening the security of ourselves and all other peaceful countries and we are prepared to exert our full power to redress the injuries caused by its latest manifestations and, above all, to establish an international order in which future aggression will be prevented, writes Lord Cecil. In considering the “approaches to peace” that is the dentral proposition which we must keep before our minds. We desire oui - Government to stand firmly for the principle that no nation should attempt to take the law into its own hands and resort to aggressivewar to enforce its “rights.” Aggressive war is an international crime, and it is the duty of all peape-loving and law-abiding Slates to prevent or stop it. That is, or ought to be, the fundamental text of our international creed.

The first step must be the abolition of the right of war. So long as that exists all international progress is precarious. If and when the unlawfulness of aggressive war has been firmly established, other progress may be possible. That is the real issue. When the idea of a League of Nations became a practical proposition it was immensely popular in this country. It was, however, an essential part of the League conception that, in the last resort, adequate force should be on the side of those who were attacked. Obviously we should have to be an important part of such a defensive force. That meant that we might have to join in resisting aggression in any part of the civilised world. Immediately came the cry that it was unreasonable or even immoral to ask that British blood and treasure should be expended to defend distant countries.

Certain it is that only by vigorous and courageous leadership could the Governments of the world have been kept up to the duties imposed upon them by the Covenant. Unhappily, that leadership failed. In the Manchurian, the Abyssinian, and, later, in the Czechoslovakian disputes, as well as in the Disarmament Conference, the policy of the French and British Governments, the natural leaders of the League, seemed to be dominated by the desire to avoid immediate responsibilities, whatever might be the ultimate consequences. Recently, a demand has grown up for a federation of the democracies of the world. It is much to be hoped that in the future something of the kind may be possible.

The’plan is this: Let us have an international Constitution on the model of that of the United States. There would be a House of Representatives, elected by the different countries on a basis of population. Even on this point obvious difficulties arise, since some of the least advanced countries, like China, have the largest number of inhabitants. In order to correct such inequalities, there would be a Senate elected by States. These houses would decide by majority on such questions as peace and war, tariffs, currency, and the like, which are of major international importance, so that a great country like the United States might find itself committed to war, or to Free Trade, against its own desires, by a combination of other States. I have difficulty in believing that American opinion would tolerate such an arrangement. I am much afraid that English and Dominion opinion would be equally hard to convince. If that is the feeling in the British Commonwealth, with all the unifying influences and sympathies which exist in it, how much more would it appear in a number of States separated in many cases by language and literature and even general culture and in all cases by great and proudly held historical tradition?

I do not forget that the author of “Union Now” proposes that his scheme shall apply at first to the great democracies of America, France and Britain, and that other countries shall only be admitted when they become democracies. In other words, he proposes to federalise the peace block, with the addition of the United States. I am afraid that the immediate result of this would be the crystallisation of a counter-group of those countries which believe in some form of autocracy. I believe we must still be content to work only for such an advance as may effectively unite the powers of peace, without disturbing more than necessary the passionately held doctrine of national sovereignty. If it is true that the League failures from 1931 onwards have been chiefly due to the resurrection of national sovereignty in its most extreme form, it certainly seems very optimistic to believe that it is at present practicable to induce the Powers to accept such a much more drastic invasion of nationalism as would result from the adoption of federalism.

<■ I do not say that the League system is incapable of improvement. What is wanted is that the decay should be arrested and the powers of the League reviewed and in certain respects intensified. As regards sanctions, the general principle that any attack on any of the members of the League is a matter of concern to all of them is sound and should be retained, provided it is clearly understood that action suitable in one case is not necessarily suitable in all. With respect to the other powers and duties of the League, there is very widespread agreement that what may be called the politically non-contentious work of the League has been very successful. The industrial work of the International Labour Office should clearly be preserved. So should the humanitarian, social and cultural work of the League Committees which the Bruce Commission has proposed to strengthen and uniify. For all this kind of work a world-wide organisation is almost essential.

The general framework of the League, including the Council. Assembly and Secretariat and the analogous organs of the 1.L.0.. should therefore be maintained. That is equally true of the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. An examination of League history shows two things. The first is that remonstrance, however general and well founded, will not alone stop an aggressive Power from carrying out its policy. Secondly, there has been a lack of solidarity, of esprit de corps, in the League Powers which should have induced them, jointly and almost automatically, to resist an attack on any one of their number. I believe that all these defects would be lessened if there wore inside the framework of the League confederations of geo-

graphically related Powers with appropriate confederated organs. The most obviously necessary of these bodies would be a European confederation. And here we have an existing foundation on which to build in the Anglo-French partnership which the war has brought into existence. That movement should be continued and developed after the war into what might well become a definite European confederation, the central object of which should be the preservation of European peace. It should be open to European members of the League who fully accept the principle that aggression is an international crime and are prepared to use all their strength to protect victims of it in Europe. A European general staff would be needed, and possibly other organs. The confederation would be autonomous in the sense that it would not be subject to the control of any other international authority. But it would remain in close touch with the League and notify the Council and Assembly of its proceedings. There must be no rivalry between the two organisations, but, on the contrary, the closest cooperation. The general peace-keeping machinery of the Covenant would remain, including the duty of all members to do what is reasonably possible to protect any one of their number from aggression. The creation of the European Confederation would be no more than a closer definition of these duties in one area.

Questions like social and economic progress, including possibly a common currency and a common tariff policy and, it may be, a Confederation flag, would doubtless arise. If, as is vital for permanent peace, a scheme of international limitation of armaments is adopted, it might probably involve an international air force under the control of the European General Staff. Certainly some machinery should be created for dealing peaceably with international disputes unsuitable for reference to The Hague Court as depending rather on questions of general policy than on legal or logical arguments.

I believe that confederation —that is, the constitutional union of independent States inside the general framework of the League—may help to make men realise that it is only by international co-operation that peace can be preserved.