Evening star., 1932-03-06
BY PAUL SCOTT MOWRER.

BY Gable to The Star.
GENEVA, March 5.-Two funda-
mentally different theories of world
peace are now struggling for suprem-
acy in the debates on the Sino-Jap-
aneSe conflict before the Assembly Of
the League of Nations here.
One is the League theory, based on
sanctions The other is the American
theory, opposed to sanctions and based
wholly on moral force.
The two theories are not necessarily
irreconcilable. They could seemingly
be welded together if both the United
States and the League are willing. On
the other hand, it is possible that one
or the other theory will emerge dom
inant from the Far Eastern tragedy.
1t is conceivable that the League will
quietly drop the idea of sanctions al
together. It is equally conceivable,
If the League decides on sanctions,
that the United States will join there
in. Either course will constitute a
tremendous precedent.
Not the fate alone of the Disarma-
ment Conference, but that of the future
peace system of the world, seems to
depend on the result of these momen-
tous discussions.
Gist Of American Theory.
The American theory can be stated
as follows:
What is wanted Is to prevent war
But sanctions lead almost inevitably
to war. Therefore sanctions are bad.
War has been outlawed by the Kel-
logg pact. If, nevertheless, as now in
the Far East, one of it's signatories
commits aggression, there Is no need
for armed Intervention. It will be
sufficient to investigate facts, inform
and mobilize public opinion, declare
that no territorial changes brought
about by force will be recognized and
then wait patiently until the offending
nation comes to its senses, as it surely
will sooner or later.
1t Is interesting to note. by the way,
that the Kellogg pact outlawing war
and its new Stimson corollary of nom
recognition Of military conquests were
both first proposed by the Chicago
lawyer, Salmon o. Levinson.
Now for the League theory: This
theory was also originally American.
1t grew out of the ideas of the old
League to Enforce Peace and was re-
adapted by Woodrow Wilson in Paris.
The way to prevent war; it says, is by
declaring and making sure in advance
that any country which refuses a
peaceful settlement and attacks anoth
er will find all the rest OF the world
in an armed league against 1t. The re-
suit will be that even the strongest
will not dare to commit aggression.
Cancellation Provided.
The League covenant, however, pro-
vides a long series of attempts at con-
ciliation before actual resort to first
Ia {+1r- .1Rt
And there has been an increasing ten
dency on the part of some League
members to declare that they are not
bound to take military sanctions at
all. This tendency has given rise to
increasing doubt of the Leagues eff
ficacy. It is at the bottom of some
of the worlds present unrest.
France is the leader of the move
ment to get the League back to the
original conception of armed sanctions
as the best preventive of war. Great
Britain leads the opposite tendency. to
avoid sanctions altogether. Germany
leads still a third trend, maintaining
that sanctions foreseen in the COW
enant can only be applied after gen.
eral disarmament treaty, as provided
by Article VIII.
French efforts eliminated in the
Geneva mutual aid protocol of 1925.
Great Britain vetoed it. Mutual aid,
said Great Britain, cannot be general,
but only regional. The Locarno trea-
ties followed. They were to be merely
the first of series of such regional
agreements.
France has been trying ever since TO
bring about others. but without sue
cess so far. 1t is still trying now in
the Disarmament Conference.
Great Britain's Position.
The British theory is that the Gov
enant can only be fully applied if
the United States joins the League or
at least makes clear in advance that