Evening star., 1918-02-17
LEAGUE OF NATIONS, PRO AND CON,
AS SEEN BY SIR EDWARD CARSON
Practical Difficulties in Idea H.
Iustrated by Events Of Re-
cent Years.
Sympathy Expressed With
Idea of a Democracy in
Every Country of World.
of the Associated Press.


LONDON. February L.
There are many practical diff
culties in the way of a League
of Nations" said Sir Edward
Carson, minister without port
folio in the British war cabinet
(since resigned) in an interview
with the Associated Press.
But what is to become OF all
OF us if it is not realized? he
asked. Has not this war shown
that science, which has done so
much on the constructive side for
civilization and humanity, must
inevitably, if turned to a destruc-
t:ve end, soon spell the complete
ruin and death of all civilization
and all humanity?'
Sir Edward, for nearly a gen
Grafton one of the greatest Eng
lish authorities on international
law, proceeded to enumerate
some of the difficulties in the way
OF a successful league of ma
tions.
1T goes without saying" he said.
that everybody is in favor of a league
of nations. but many people use the
phrase without any idea of what it
can do or how it can do it. Some peo-
pie imagine that you have solved the
whole question of war when you set up
a league of nations. But they don't tell
US how it will prevent war.
Must Make Future War Impossible.
my own view. I may say. is that
this war. with all its sacrifices and its
enveloping chaos, will have been fought
in vain unless something results from
it which makes war practically. il not
altogether. impossible in the future. If
which will bring about that result it
will be the greatest blessing ever con-
ferred on mankind.
"A league of nations would have this
advantage-irst of all, it ought to
create an international atmosphere of
peace. If it could become a universal
feeling that it was an international dis
grace for any nation to break away
you would have in that feeling alone
an influence in world politics which
would be a great benefit to the human
race.ss
But until you have clearly evolved
the machinery of your league of ma
tions. until you have created machinery
which can be so framed and so worked
as to make war impossible, you must
take the greatest care that the idea
doesn't become merely trap for peace
loving nations and a method of predom-
nance for the more aggressive, am
bilious and unscrupulous nations to
eIaIt themselves
How far has re world in the past
been able to get toward the ideal of
a league of nations? The whole of
Europe, Including Germany. guaranteed
the independence of Belgium 1t was
natural that Belgium should place full
reliance on that treaty Yet one has
only to look at the present war to see
of how little avail was the league of
nations that stood behind Belgium
Russia, as Well as Belgium, Cited.
For another instance, let US examine
the treaty of London. made between the
entente allies after the war, and which
should make peace without the consent
and agreement of the others. Russia
was a party to that treaty, but what
happened? A series of unusual events
occurred in Russia. a government was
overthrown and you find the new gov
ernment setting up a claim that the
treaty of London does not bind it be-
cause made by another government.
Before the war we had a series of
Hague treaties. which in a sense were
a league of nations defining numerous
questions under International law.
They laid down the most solemn rules
for observance in case war broke out.
Nobody had to sign those treaties
against their will. But the war has
shown that they were of no avail for
Germany forthwith claimed the right
to disregard any or all Of them.
Unless some far-reaching changes
are made, then. a mere agreement
among nations to stop war is not any
thing on which any nation could safely
rely.
There are difficulties also regarding
the composition of league of ma