Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1943. POST-WAR CO-OPERATION.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 May 1943, Page 2

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1943. POST-WAR CO-OPERATION.

NEUTER lie had spoken in Wellington the other evening on postwar problems and policy, the New Zealand Minister to Washington (Mr Nash) was asked whether there was strong support in the United States among people who counted for the principles he had outlined —principles of international cooperation. Mr Nash replied that there was a strong body of opinion, with some of its adherents in high places, who were in favour of the application of these principles. This, he said, applied to Britain as well as to the United States, adding: “What we have to do is to link those people together. Then, it we work hard enough, I think we shall get somewhere.”

It must be hoped that Mr Nash is not unduly optimistic. Anyone may perceive that unless the United Nations emerge from this war prepared to remain united in policing the world and in developing economic and other relationships on a basis of true co-operation, the outlook for civilised humanity will be dark and unpromising. The need of united effort to these ends is as well established as is the need of winning the war completely and decisively. It would be going well beyond established facts, however, to say that there is as firm an assurance of united effort in building up and maintaining a secure peace as there is of the loyal combination of warlike action that is needed to bring victory.

The danger that even this terrible war may be followed by an insecure peace appears not only in the magnitude and complexity of the problems involved in organising the world for peace, and in the rather obvious fact that the English-speak-ing nations are still far from having achieved the full understanding that is not only desirable, but vitally necessary with Russia and with China, but in the existence of a measure of uncertainty as to the extent to which a. continuation of AngloAmerican co-operation can be depended upon when the war is over.

There are grounds for hoping and believing that in Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations an overwhelming weight of opinion will favour and support broad-based postwar co-operation, directed, not only to putting down by a prompt exercise of force any new outbreak of aggression should it be attempted, but positively and constructively to a removal of the causes of war. It is not yet to be taken for granted, however, that the United States will as a matter of course identify itself with this policy and action.

It is true that the supreme and overshadowing need of international co-operation after the war has been proclaimed nowhere more impressively and from a more enlightened standpoint than by President Roosevelt, and that he claims that most Americans are with him in holding that the United Nations must remain united for the maintenance of peace.- The danger has been emphasised by able and well-informed American commentators, however, that elements and factors in domestic politics may break the power of the President to participate in world affairs.

Internal political opposition to President Roosevelt is made formidable amongst other things by the constitutional provision which requires a two-thirds Senate majority for the ratification of any peace treaty. With 96 Senators in all, it is open to 33 of their number to reject, or to amend with wrecking effect, any treaty of the kind. Whether President Roosevelt and those who stand with him in the matter of international co-operation can overcome this difficulty and others remains to be seen.