Evening Star Newspaper, April 26, 1931, Page 75

THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, APRIL 26, ; l9§!. P 3 Is EUROPE Drzftmg Into Another WAR? VISCOUNT ROBERT CECIL, the author of this article, is one of England’s rep- resentatives in the League of Nations and is probably better acquainted with the work- ings of the League than any other English- man. He is one of the world’s leading ad- vocates of disarmament and outstanding in his efforts for world peace. His views on the danger of possible future wars are set forth in the accompanying article. ISILLUSIONMENT can be the solvent s of all principles and convictions, and it is most potent when induced by unwarranted hopes. Who can have observed the recent intrigues d maneuverings for position without seeing this polsonous process is at work in several uropean countries and, most tragically, in Germany? Theoermnnpeople at a time when revulsion pain militarism and autocracy were still trong enough to hold their own, even against he national resentment induced by the humili- lions subsequent upon the result of the war, ere persuaded to join the League of Nations. hey joined not to take part in the establish- pent of a new world order so much as to edress their national grievances. Though I do not suppose that Dr. Strese- n and his colleagues ever had the intention cmung that impression, I am quite sure h a great part of the German people were d to believe that, by joining the League, their jountry could very soon be able to have what believed to be its wrongs put right. The gma of war guilt and the humiliation of mili- inferiority would, they believed, he done way; German-speaking minorities would be sed or greatly benefited; rectification of ontiers would be made to Germany’s profit; jhe would even regain a part of her colonial impire. UCH hopes are intelligible enough. But their fulfillment can only come as a result of the internationalism. The process may seem take long. The mills of Geneva may grind owly; but, believe me, there is no other way. know what is said. After a wealth of words, il we have obtained are a few improvements h the procedure for dealing with minority pe- tions; treaty revision is hardly mentioned; 10 s’ talk about disarmament seems to bring he end of the allies’ military predominance no earer; the vision of economic unity and co- peration of 1927 almost disappears before the k realities of economic nationalism in 1930. Meanwhile, the immense volume of positive hievement at Geneva is hidden from sight. I h this is not a caricature of the judgments sed in the mind of a certain section of the man public. And to what conclusion does German of this school come? He feels that his patience has been overtried. fhe system of co-operation through the League s not ylelded the hoped-for results, and in distllusionment he is in danger of reverting the old doctrine of blood and iron, to that ternational cynicism which refuses belief in hything but force and which must in the end d to a repetition of 1914-18. I have no that, coupled with unemployment, finan- Y 1 =083 ) 31 moml 19 Viscount RobertCil, England’s outstand- ing representative in the League of Nations. cial depression and the inevitable sense of wounded pride, these sentiments have provided the leaders of extreme nationalism with the material which they are so vigorously and un- scrupulously using against the recent Disarma- ment Commission and against Germany’s mem- bership in the League itself. N PRANCE, in Italy and even in England I see ‘in some quarters the same reversion to what is called “real politics,” to the same rejec- tion of everything except armed strength as the basis of national statecraft. The reaction—for reaction it is—is partly due to the age-long tradition that national safety depends on the army or the fleet, and partly, perhaps mainly, to international suspicion fed by similar move- ments in other countries. In some countries, too, widespread disgust with the inefficiency of parliamentary democ- racy in internal politics has bred distrust of what is taken to be a similar system in the in- ternational field. Lastly, the prevalence of eco- nomic difficulties has caused national restless- ness and discontent, easily taking the form of irrational or envious xenophobia. Such are some of the causes which, coupled with the waning recollection of the horrors of war, have led to a revolt of nationalist “realism.” But is it “realism”? Is it not, after all, a far worse illusion than the hope of systematic in- ternational co-operation can ever be? May I speak frankly to those in Germany and else- where who seem to be drifting back to the pre- war conception of international relations, namely, that they can only rest on a basis of force? Can any one pretend that the Great War, with its stupendous loss of life and treasure and all its spiritual evils, did not show the bank- ruptcy of this system? It is, in fact, no system at all, nor can it ever be. It is a blind refusal to recognize existence of an international society, and it flies in the face of all the requirements of conscience, rea- son and the manifest developments of economic and financial life, It is blind because, in con- sidering the force supposed to be necessary to advance the interests of a particular nation, it ignores not only the rights of others but the inevitable reactions which this selfish develop- ment of force is likely to produce in others. For two can and will play at this game of force. T IS not simply a question of gaining some victory in internal politics over the advocates of international conciliation and the League of Nations. IT one nation were to be so misguided as to demand the repudiation of its duties and rights under the Covenant of the League, to wreck the Disarmament Convention and to '-urn (LR S (38 22 5 ) Time to Call the Bluff‘of.' the Militarists; Says the Distinguished British States= man, as He Discerns Among Leading Nations of the Continent Signs of “The Rejection of Everything Except Armed Strength as the Basis of National for safety to the old formula of force, there would be an immediate answer in the military preparation of their neighbors and, indeed, of all those countries which are profoundly at- plunged in a welter of slaughter and destruc- tion. Will the people of Europe really tolerate this sinfster return to such a discredited and disas- trous system? I doubt it. take—17 years old, to be precise. No; there are many nations—the British and American and many of the lesser powers of Eu- rope at least—with whom it is a deep popular conviction that co-operation and justice must be substituted for force. In Britain this conviction is so strong that I have no hesitation whatever in saying that a nation which repudiates international co-opera- tion and the whole principle of the impartial arbifration of differences, or a nation which gives evidences of insincerity in working for peace through refusing to reduce armaments, will sooner or later forfeit British friendship altogether. That nation would also, I believe, quite definitely alienate American sentiment and American finance. All the progressive countries of the world would inevitably be ranged against it. And if the advocates of the “strong hand” believe that an alliance based on the precarious friendship of two or three other powers also pursuing purely individualistic aims is a suf- ficient compensation for the result, I can only say that I believe them to be internationally insane. Faced with this choice, every great country must make the decision which in' Ger- many is being forced upon the people by their own publicists. On which side will she take her stand: support of the League and co-opera- tion, slow and difficult as that may be, or inter- national anarchy ending in war? T IS time to call the bluff of the militarists, ‘These rollicking speeches about Germany throwing off her shackles and regaining her place by force; these panicky, pompous leaders in Paris newspapers about france—the strong- est and richest power in Europe—having to take more md yet more prmuuou for her seeufity; ¢ U SR\ Statecraft.” these loud assertions that Italy is *“a when she is roused”—how far do they rely their success on the fact that ordinary work- issue has been befogged and the chances of considerable reductions jeopardized by this ree vival of the whole political controversy abou$ the revision or non-revision of the Versailles settlement. Hardly a week has passed in several months that some committee has not been active in seeking a’ proposal or a solution affecting inter national relations. rvvg PLOA