Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1940. PRINCIPLE AND ACTION.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 31 August 1940, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, AUGUST 31, 1940. PRINCIPLE AND ACTION.

JN a statement on Wednesday, the twelfth anniversary of the signing if the Keilogg-Briand Paet, the American Secretaiy of State (Mr. Cordell Hull) denounced aggression and issued a warning that no nation can hope to remain at peace except by vigorous preparation for self-defence. Citing violations of the Briand-Kellogg Pact, -Mr. Hull said: —-

The soundness of its underlying principles is not impaired by what has hapepned since. Sooner or later they must prevail as the unshakable foundations of international relations, unless war, with its horrors and ravages, is to become the normal state of the world and mankind is to relapse into chaos and barbarism.

If there is anv fault to be found with Air. Hull’s declaration, it is that it is as a whole insufficiently emphatic and tails to stale the only means by which nations desirous of: abiding by the principles of the Briand-Kellogg Pact can hope to carry these principles into effect. The all-important condition to be satisfied plainly is an association, of nations desiring to live at peace and under a rule of law, but prepared, if need be to take united action in defence of their common security.

In stating that the soundness of the underlying principles of the Briand-Kellogg Pact is not; impaired by what has happened. Air. Hull left untouched the more important fact that the inadequacy of an ostensible acceptance of the principles of the pact —the condemnation of Avar as a means of settling international disputes and an undertaking to settle such disputes by peaceful methods —has been demonstrated conclusively. The pact was signed by most of the nations of the world. The violation by a few nations of the pledges thus given has sufficed to wreck for the time being all that the pact was intended to accomplish. If t he underlying principles of the Briand-Kellogg Pact are sound, as they undoubtedly are, the right course for men and nations plainly is to take whatever action is necessary to uphold and. enforce these principles. At the present moment this question visibly is raised in definitely practical terms even lor the United States.

Air. Hull’s affirmation that no nation can hope to remain at peace except by vigorous preparations for self-defence is an obvious understatement of the truth. During the last few years Hie world has seen aggressor nations making considerable and at times staggering headway in their predatory aims, under the technique of attacking weaker nations individually and in detail. It has been demonstrated most convincingly that for many nations even the most vigorous preparation for selfdefence provides no sufficient guarantee of security. A stage has now been reached at which it may be doubted whether even a nation as rich and powerful as the United States can guarantee its own continued security by individual defensive preparation.

In. the United States it is coming to be perceived more and more clearly that nations allowed to aggrandise themselves by overthroAving and enslaving those that are Aveaker become in the end a menace even to the most poAverful nations still retaining their freedom. Only unenlightened or strangely prejudiced citizens of the United States jioaa’ believe that they could still defend their oavii national freedom and that of their hemisphere if Nazi Germany and. her jackal partner were permitted to triumph in Europe. The prevailing Aveight of opinion in the United States decisively rejects that isolationist illusion. With a full backing of public opinion, the, present rulers of the United States, among Avhom Air. Cordell Hull takes no undistinguished place, have in great part jettisoned the policy of neutrality in favour of Avliat may be called a non-belligerent alliance Avith Britain and the countries struggling to regain their freedom in Europe. It may be believed that for their oavii sakes, and apart from the sympathy most of them feel for Britain and for the invaded and oppressed countries of Europe, the people of the United States Avill more and more throw the Aveight of their resources into the scale against the dictatorships. Looking further ahead, is any other policy logically or reasonably open to the United States than that of participating in an association of nations prepared actively to enforce and uphold the principles of the Briand-Kellogg Pact? When Germany and Italy have been defeated, the hope of future peace and security in the Avorld will depend upon the creation of an association of nations prepared unitedly to use force if need be in upholding international law.

Years ago it Avas argued Avith apparent cogency that there was no need to clothe the League of Nations Avith military power io enforce its decisions because the measure of agreement required to provide that force would hi itself make the use of force unnecessary. In Avorking experience this argument has gone by the board. A Avorld thinking predominantly in narrow national terms, but'on the whole desiring peace,' lias seen violent minorities, tolerated unwisely at a-stage when they might easily have been suppressed, develop the dimensions of a world menace. If peace and security are to be re-established in the Avorld Avhen this war has been fought to a conclusion, there must be no repetit ion of the drifting fatuity Avhich permitted Hitlerism to develop unchecked. It is as well, meantime, that democratic statesmen, in applauding laudable principles like those, embodied in the Briand-Kellogg Pact should appreciate and emphasise the supremely important practical difference between the mere statement of these principles and their enforcement. The pact gives admirable expression to what ought, to be done. What is needed is a dependable means of ensuring that it is done.