Evening star., 1944-05-07
If We Will 1t

If We Will 1t
In two separate addresses within
the past few days-one in this city
and the other in Charleston, West
Virginia-Lord Halifax, British Am
bassador to the United States, made
two simple points of prime impor-
tance in relation to the future. The
first of these is that the peace-loving
nations of the world must make it
matter of basic policy to predicate
their own disarmament only upon
the condition of first establishing a
system of collective security guar
anteeing that potential aggressors
will not have chance to cut loose
again. The second is that Britain
and America must spare no effort
to continue cooperating in the
postwar period quite as much as
they are cooperating now.
The point on disarmament speaks
pretty much for itself and is already
set forth in the Atlantic Charter. It
stems from what happened in the
years between the First and Second
World Wars, when the victorious
Allies dissolved their battle partner
ship, neglected their arms and be-
gan travelling separate roads, end
ing that unity of purpose and joint
strength by which they could have
stopped the Hitlers and Tojos be-
fore it was too late. AS Lord Halifax
says, it means first of all that we
must in the future refuse to the late
aggressorS, by whatever actions or
regulations may seem most sure, any
opportunity to start trouble again.
1T means, secondly, the mainte-
nance of these controls or prohibi-
tions until we are satisfied that
there is real and permanent
change of heart. 1t means, finally,
the refusal to permit any one-sided
infraction of any terms that are i'm
posed or accepted" 1t means, in
short, no more appeasement, no
more Munichs; it means backing up
the next peace with force until
there is set up a permanent and
effective security system making
force no longer necessary.
AS for perpetuating close cooper
alton between Britain and the
United States, that, too, should
speak pretty much for itself, al
though there are those who profess
to see great obstacles in the way be-
cause OF the alleged conflict in the
interests of our two countries. Lord
Halifax argues otherwise, and he
argues perSuasively. There are diff
terences between us, of course, but
none Of vital nature, and none
that cannot be settled through
fair give and take. In modern his
tory, since the establishment of the
Monroe Doctrine, we have almost
invariably Joined hands in time of
war or of gathering world crisis.
This is not only because we speak
the same language and share
common heritage in our free insti-
tutions. It is also because geog-
raphy, our position in the oceans,
makes us so dependent on each
other that when Britain is threat
ened, we feel insecure, and vice
versa. That is perhaps the basic
reason why we team up in war-and
If in war, why not in peace? Con-
sidering how far-flung our joint
power is, Lord Halifax may be
nearer right than wrong when he
says that he doubts that the present
world struggle would ever have
started If the two of us had worked
together from 1919 to 1899 as closely
as we fought together in 1917 and
1918"
AS we move toward the next peace,
the possibilities implicit in these
two points-lasting Anglo American
cooperation and the watchful con-
troll of potential aggressors-are we'll
worth the most careful considera-
ton, since we would be we'll on the
road toward an enduring system of
collective security If we would make
them materialize. Nor should we
think of this as remote prospect,
for, as Lord Halifax says, although
our intentions and resolutions were
similarly good after the First World
War and yet came to nothing, it is
reasonable to hope that mankind
will take the lesson of the past to
heart and do better this time. In
any case, in peace-making as in
other things, the old saw still is
sound: Where there's the will.
there's the way.
The st. Louis Browns, of all teams.
now have big lead in the American