Outlook

The Pacific and the 1936 International Outlook

7 JTIIS is being written on December 17, on the eve of going to press. On December I 8, the Council of the League of Nations meets, to make a vital decision concerning the Italo-Abyssinian matter; and on December 19, the Prime Minister of Great Britain will deliver a statement likely to affect profoundly the future of the British Empire. It is possible that, between the moment of writing this, and the dawn of 1936, something will occur, m the realm of international politics, that actually will mould the future of this civili sation. There is little doubt about what is going to happen within the next few days; and, even before the event, it is possible to <Wuss our reasonable expectations for One paragraph of recapitulation. Italy, having made out a very good case, defied the League of Nations and attacked Abys sinia. The League moved ponderously, during many months, and finally cut off all trade with Italy in munitions and near munitions (“sanctions”). Italy growled; but carried on. Then the League pre pared to cut off oil supplies. Italy said that that would be regarded as an act of war. Britain then formally asked how many of the League members would join Ler in fighting Italy to uphold the law of

the League. Such a scamper was never seen before! It was the acid test. Britain shrugged her shoulders and, in consulta tion with France, evolved a “peace plan,” by which half of Abyssinia was to be given to Italy. The League, on the 1 Bth, is to either accept or reject the plan (rejection is certain) ; and on the 19th, Britain’s Prime Minister will explain to the world that Britain, alone, cannot carry on the League and fight the League’s battles against recalcitrant members.

It is clear that the international machin ery, created for the settlement of inter national disputes is in the melting-pot. It is the end of the idealistic League of Na tions. It was a beautiful conception, like the teachings of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx. But what man, with real knowledge of human history and human nature, would expect to see international affairs directed by a League of Nations, any more than he would expect humanity to adopt scientific Socialism or the precepts of practical Christianity? All honour to the men who strive to replace the law of the jungle with the spirit of love, be they parsons or poli ticians, prohibitionists or merely followers of Major Douglas. For ourselves, while we take off our hats in the presence of sin cere reformers, we prefer to keep our feet

planted hard on mother earth and a thick stick at hand, ready for the thief who waits always around the corner.

Under the dreamy Ramsay MacDonald, Britain disarmed to the point of lunacy; but not one Great Power followed her example. Driven by fiery idealists, Britain kept the League of Nations in existence although Manchukuo and Gran Chaco showed it to be but a farce; and, finally, under Baldwin, she threw her whole weight and influence behind the League and, using the Abyssinian trouble as a vehicle, she “forced a showdown.”

We can be very proud of what our great Motherland has done! If other nations had been sincere in their professed allegiance to the ideal, the League of Nations would have lived and been effective. But, in the end, the only great Power left standing with Britain at Geneva was France a re luctant France. Italy, though still a mem ber, is fighting the League, Bolshevist Russia is internationally undependable a slow-moving, cumbersome experiment in humanitarianism. Britain forced the issue with Italy in order to show, in practical fashion, the uselessness of the League. She knew, months ago, what the outcome would be; and, months ago, she began to re-arm. The developments of December, 1935, world-shaking, and perhaps surpris ing to some, have been no surprise to the wise men of Westminster. The occurrences of 1935 have served as the events of 1936 will disclose only to speed up the re-armament of Great Britain. In that fact

lies our comfort and, probably, the se curity of world peace.

In the world, there are six Great Powers Britain, United States, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. We may, for the present, omit Russia that inchoate and uncorre lated mass. Three of those Powers have territory, vast material resources, room for expansion. Three others Germany, Italy and Japan are increasing most rapidly in population, and have no territory into which to expand. In relation to these fun damental things, there is no law, except that of the tooth and claw. Those great nations know that they must have new country, or perish. So they will take new country if they can. If, in taking new country, they cause some slight distress among that country’s inhabitants well, (to use an irresistible trans-Pacific expres sion) that’s just too bad!

Of what use, in such circumstances, is international idealism? Of the three land hungry Powers, Japan and Germany have left the League, and Italy now is half out.

France has been loyal to Britain, and has gone a long way with Britain in this League business albeit very unwillingly, for the French are realists. But now, surely, the farce is ended. The fact that this end was long foreseen does not at all detract from the admiration and respect which we must accord the men who tried so staunchly to make the League of Na tions an effective force.

And now, what of the future what of 1936? Probably, it will be a year of in tense anxiety and much talk of war; but, if our statesmen are as wise as they seem to be, there need be no war. The surest guarantee of world peace is an armed Britain. We may be “perfidious Albion,” and a country of storekeepers, and a race of hungry land-grabbers; but every nation knows that the British dislike war, and will go to any lengths to avoid war, and that their disinclination to fight does not mean that they cannot fight. So long as Britain is ready to fight, and to throw in her weight on the side of peace and justice, there will be little risk of war.

But readiness for war connotes some thing more than a willing spirit. War, nowadays, means mechanisation and tech nical skill in the nth degree. Prepared ness, nowadays, means hundreds of war ships and thousands of aeroplanes and hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers.

Fortunately, the Empire generally is pros perous, and easily can stand the strain of armaments. This insurance of our secur ity should be paid gladly.

There is a sign of the times, even as we write. The Naval Conference has met in London; and the old naval building agree ment has gone overboard. Japan insists on the right to build a navy as big as that of Britain or America. Statesmen, still, are striving and arguing; but it looks as if, next year, the navy-building race will be resumed. This is of vital importance to the Pacific, because two of the contestants, United States and Japan, will be presently throwing their rival navies into the North ern Pacific.

Germany’s demand for new territory certainly will be heard of in 1936; and, almost as certainly, the demand will take the shape, first, of an appeal to Britain, and an attempt to secure some sort of alliance with Britain. This will be one of

the gravest responsibilities thrown upon British statesmen. There are those who argue that, if Britain were to help Ger many to recover her proper place in the world, and were to secure the goodwill and friendship of the German people, there could be no greater guarantee of world peace. Those of us who remember the aggressive, swashbuckling Prussians of 1914 may be excused, however, if we wonder whether the “Deutschland Über Alle” spirit of 1914 has been completely exorcised. In any event, the future of New Guinea and Samoa will be subject to survey.

The Pacific, in 1936, will be under the shadow of grave international readjust ments; but, apart from that, it should ex perience some inspiring progress made in commerce, industry, transport and com munication. The world is giving increas ing attention to the rich Pacific territories, and we are about to see, in this region, the era of romance supplanted by the era of development.