UNITY IN EUROPE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 September 1942, Page 4

UNITY IN EUROPE

WILL NOT EMERGE AS SOON AS WAR IS OVER DR. BENES POINTS TO REALITIES GREAT POWERS MUST TAKE LEAD. IN ESTABLISHING COLLECTIVE SECURITY. (By Mallory Browne, in the “Christian Science Monitor.”) “If we are to avoid repetition of our failures after the last war, we must be realists this lime in our approach to the problem of preserving peace in the postwar world. Nothing could be more dangerous than to believe that Europe will be transformed at once from a chaotic battlefield into a united continent.” ' , , Coming as it did from Dr. Eduard Benes, who is usdfelly considered an optimistic and confirmed idealist among European leaders, this statement was little short of startling. “It is of the greatest importance,” Dr. Benes continued, speaking in that careful, emphatic manner which makes you feel he has weighed every one of his words, “that people of the United States in particular should understand the difficulties that will confront us after this war. Europe is not America. Europe’s differences are rooted in 2000 years of tradition, of history, of conflict. Even in the United States you did not fully establish federation until nearly a century after the Revolution, and then only at the cost of a great civil war. In Europe, unification or federation will be a still harder task.” VISIBLE ALTERNATIVES. “But, Dr. Benes,” I asked, “may it not be that this war is for Europe what the war between the states was for the United States Surely this war, coming after the experiences of the last 20 years, must have made it plain enough that the alternative to federation is anarchy, and that the outcome of international anarchy is war.” Dr. Benes smiled but shook his head. “You must not expect European unity to emerge just immediately out of this war. I am convinced that a unified Europe will surely come, and that it can come only not from war but from a prolonged period of peace. To expect a United States of Europe to arise out of a battle-scarred European continent would only be to court disappointment and dangerous disillusionment.” I was surprised at this. Surely, I thought to myself, if any country and person had suffered from the anarchy and disunity of Europe, it was Czechoslovakia and Dr. Benes himself. Why, I wondered, was he taking this reserved attitude toward the immediate possibility of some form of Federal organisation on the continent?

Almost as if he knew what I was thinking, Dr. Benes leaned forward and said with earnest eagerness: “Do not misunderstand me,” he said. “I believe firmly in federation. Europe must unite, and in the long run it will. What I am saying—and I believe it is vitally important it should be said is that we must proceed by gradual stages.” “You mean there will have to be an interim period of a few years after the armistice while the immediate problems of rehabilitation and reconstruction, such as feeding the peoples of Europe, are settled first?” I asked.

“TWO GENERATIONS AT LEAST.”

Again Dr. Benes smiled patiently. “Yes, but not only that. It isn’t merely a question of a few years. We must have a long period of peace, two generations at least, say 50 or 75 years. Take the problem of re-education—-and that is only one of many. It will take at least one generation, probably two, of re-education in Germany, Hungary and Italy to wipe out the effects of Naziism and Fascism.

■ “Let us be perfectly frank. We must face the possibility—in fact, I should say the probability —that the close of the war will find many countries racked by revolutions, by civil wars, perhaps even by minor wars with their neighbours over territorial questions. “These problems will not be solved quickly. It is much better for us to realise this rather than to fool ourselves into thinking that after the war it will be easy sailing,” “But how,” I asked, “are you to insure the period of peace for half a century or so, which you say is necessary before Europe will be ripe for federation? How, for instance, are you to prevent the arising of a new Hitler in Germany?” ONLY ONE WAY. “There is only one way,” Dr. Benes replied, speaking even more slowly and emphatically than usual. “It is for the four great powers—Great Britain, the United States, Soviet Russia and China —to take the lead in establishing a new system of collective security based on the present solidarity of all the United Nations.”

“But collective security was tried at Geneva and it failed.”

“It would be truer to say it was talked of at Geneva but never really tried,” Dr. Benes said smilingly. “We have learned a lot since then. For one thing, we now know that there can be no such thing as a neutral country, We know that the smaller countries of the world, and in particular of Europe, have their part to play in the organisation of security and peace as well as the larger countries. In Europe, for example, Great Britain and Soviet Russia should plainly take the lead. They should agree to act together for the preservation of peace on the continent. And with the United States they will, I hope, help to re-establish France in its former force. REGIONAL GROUPINGS. “Smaller powers should likewise group themselves regionally in consultation and co-operation with Russia in the east and Britain in the west for the same purpose. The agreement which we, the Czechoslovak Government, have made with Poland, in consultation with the Governments of Great Britain and Soviet Russia, is the sort of thing I have in mind. So is. A he treaty between the Greek and Yugoslav Governments. I think that the principle underlying these regional accords could be extended to other regions; for instance, to Scandinavia. But an intimate collaboration and agreement between the present community of United Nations is a fundamental condition of the success of -this policy.” “But how do you envisage giving practical effect to these regional security accords?” I asked. “Do you think it should be merely a question of alliances, or do you envisage the development of an international police force?” “Alliances are the natural and inevitable first step,” Dr. Benes said. “You see what was done in this great document published in these last few days —I mean the British-Soviet alliance,

But in the process of policing the continent, and maintaining order there after the cessation of hostilities, the beginnings of an international police force are likely to emerge. Personally, I think an international air force is a logical development which we may expect fairly soon.” Dr. Benes paused for a moment and then again leaned forward and spoke with careful emphasis; “It will all come in time, but we must not expect any immediate miracles. I believe that is the most important point to make clear, especially to the people of America. It may not be popular today to be moderate and realistic about post-war prospects, but I believe such an attitude to be of vital necessity. PROGRESS BY STAGES. “We must not again risk the disaster that would surely follow if the people of the United States—and, of course, other peoples, too—were to be disappointed and disillusioned over the slow progress of Europe toward unity after this war. For that reason we must plan to proceed slowly but systematically and by stages. We must know the limit of our hopes and expectations. We must take the view and recognise frankly that Europe is not yet, under present conditions, quite ripe for an immediate whole continental federation. We must acknowledge the necessity of proceeding by gradual stages. We must cut our post-war peace plans to fit the war-worn fabric of Europe as it is, not as we would like it to be. If we approach the problem in this way, with the aim of preserving peace by organising collective security on the basis of the present set-up between the United Nations, then we can go on from there to the next step of building a federal Europe as part of the ultimate federation of mankind throughout the world. Only in this way, and by this method, shall we realise this great ideal. I believe and I am sure it will be realised.”