Evening star., 1949-05-30
Duty Of Governments
In Building Will 10
Peace Hard 10 Define
Memorial Day RecuIIs
Sacrifices Mode in
Two World Wurs
Rp Dapfd laurence


By David Laurence
Memorial Day thoughts no long
er are turned so pointedly toward
the conflict that was waged be-
tween the States 88 years ago
Now it is the memory of what
sacrifices were made In two world
wars that makes the holiday an
occasion for solemn meditation
But In all the tributes that are
paid today. the theme so elo-
quently pronounced by Lincoln
that these dead shall not have
died In vain"-scarcely ever Is
supplemented by thoughts of what
are the true obligations Of the
living. The principle that prepa-
ration must be made to face any
threat to our safety is. Of course,
basic. but unfortunately it goes
only part way toward building for
peace.
Too often the assumption is ex-
pressed that mere strength is
enough to keep an aggfessor from
invading or attacking. This. of
course, is emphasized by the glori-
Gus record in arms which Memo
rial Day invariably recalls. But
it Is much harder to define the
duty of governments and peoples
In building will to peace.
Every day there are manifesto
tions of friction in the world.
Sometimes it is overt acts and
sometimes angry or sarcastic
expressions that wound feelings
and dig deeper the cleavages of
djstrust. It Is not easy to argue
for reason and restraint or for
the exercise Of patience when
provocation is continuous. But
this is an inevitable counterpart
of the problem-the need for
calmness and GOODNESS and the
deliberateness that goes with a
sensible pressure for right things
as against evil things in the rela-
ton Of governments to one an
other.
Challenge Toward Peace.
The conference now going on
at Paris between the prime min
listers representing Great Britain.
France, the United States and
Russia is a conspicuous example
of the challenges that are made
along the way toward the hoped
for peace and stability that has
been denied the world since hos
tilities ended in Europe four years
ago.
Each day the news dispatches
tell of the exchanges Of views be-
tween the ministers. Sometimes
there are words that indicate
intransigeance and even bitter
ness. Sometimes there are words
of conciliatton. One wonders
whether the harsh words are con-
structive or useful to any degree.
One wonders if the statesmen who
represent these four great nations
could not as well present their
viewpoints in the restrained
language that used to be so char
acteristic of diplomacy.
Perhaps it Is because the is
sues are fraught with deep emo
tional reactions and have already
frayed the nerves of statesmen.
Perhaps it is because bluntness
is accepted as one way to make
an impression on an adversary
who adopts dilatory tactics or the
strategy of obstruction. The fact
remains that, since the lifting of
the blockade at Berlin. the world
has hoped that the words spoken
by the governments would re-
fleet the conciliatory attitudes
which it must be assumed were
behind the change recently made
in policy at Moscow.
The absence of such concilia-
tory words can be attributed in
large part to the presence of a
basic distrust which will, of
course, not be removed by a sin
gle act or gesture toward peace
by the Soviets. There will ap-
parently have to be further evi-
dences of a constructive purpose
before the Western Powers will
change their tone. too.
Little Difference Noted.
At the moment. reading of the
dispatches from Paris indicates
little difference from what was
being said and written at the time
of the breakup of the preceding
Four-Power conferences. But,
reading between the lines. Of the
Russian statements at the confer
ence, there are nevertheless signs
khat Moscow will make modifica-
lions In her demands and will ac-
Ecept some form Of settlement
rather than assist in producing
another stalemate.
What, then. is the duty Of the
Western Powers2 Can they turn
q deaf ear to concessions and con-
tinue to speak the language OF the
cold war, or must they manifest a
conciliatory attitude. especially in
public speeches and statements?
The words of peace and con-
ciliation need not mean surrender
of principle or ideals. To. build a
new trust and to make COM
munism seem less attractive to
the Russian people and to the
peoples of satellite countries, there
must be a greater sense of conf
dence expressed in ideals than In
might-a greater faith in the
ultimate ascendancy Of moral
than in physical force-if the Me-
mortal Days Of future years are
to be dedicated to anniversaries
of unbroken peace as q sequel to
wars won.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)