Skip to main content

Full text of "The Struggle For Peace"

See other formats

detestation of the Government for war and did not once
mention the name of the League. Would it really have
illuminated matters very much if my right hon. Friend had
repeated what has been said hundreds of times—that this
Government does detest war, and that we have done and
are doing everything we can to maintain peace throughout
the world ? Would that have illuminated matters at all ?
Is not the real, practical question what action can we take
in existing circumstances to carry that principle into effect ?
When the hon. Member says that my right hon. Friend did
not mention the League, what is the use of saying for the
thousandth time that we believe in the principles for which
the League was founded and that our policy is directed to
make those principles effective ? That is not carrying us any
further, and I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member
forgets that the League is not an end in itself, it is a means
towards an end, and if the League is temporarily unable to
fulfil its function to achieve that end, what is the use of
repeating parrot-like that we believe in the League ?
" We believe in the principles for which the League was
founded. We do believe that if it could be as it was, or as
it was expected to be, a League of all the powerful nations in
the world, it would be an effective instrument for carrying
out the principles in which the hon. Member and the Govern-
ment believe. The hon. Member says that the League is a
guarantee against aggression. Unfortunately, experience has
shown this to be absolutely untrue. The League as it is at
present is not a guarantee against aggression, and pending a
regeneration of the League or its development into an effective
instrument, it is no use going on repeating ' the League.'
We, have to find practical means of restoring peace to the
" My right hon. Friend, in making the first speech in the
Debate, confined himself to two subjects, and for the most
part I think the Debate has followed his example. That seems
to me to be right. I do not imagine that when the right hon.
Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Attlee) expressed
a desire for a Debate upon foreign affairs to~day? his purpose
was merely to debate in an academic manner general questions
pf policy. I conceive that his purpose was to ascertain from