WAR AND PEACE
WITH the Prime Minister saying less than could be desired in his public speeches about international organisation after the war, the references to that subject by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on Wednesday are particularly welcome. There must, as Mr. Eden said, be no suggestion of an imposition of the will of the greater victorious Powers, Britain, the United States, Russia and China, on lesser States, but it is imperative that the welded framework of the United Nations shall remain intact, as the main support of an international society determined to preserve the world from future aggression and commanding a force capable of ensuring that. Mr. Eden accurately defined the three indispensable conditions when he laid it down that such an organisation must be fully representative of the Powers that mean to keep the peace, that the Powers concerned must have the unity and determination to arrive at agreed and positive decisions, and that they should have behind them the force to give effect to their decisions. All that must command general assent, but such an organisation does not spring complete to birth, even with the still-existing fabric of the League of Nations (to many of whose continuing activities Mr. Eden paid just tribute) as basis. It is, as the Foreign Secretary, warmly endorsing a recent speech by Mr. Sumner Welles, said, essential to reach agreement between the United Nations before the Armistice. That means that conversations of a concrete and not merely academic character ought to be already in progress on this dominating problem between London and Washington, with such measure of endorse- ment, or actual participation, as can be secured from Moscow in existing circumstances, Perhaps they may be. The time available will be none too long ; we must not be plunged into post-war discussions unprepared in this vital particular.
The Plight of Italy The most impressive passage in Mr. Churchill's broadcast last was that in which he gave a stern and, indeed, terrible warning to the rulers of Italy and the unfortunate nation that has tolerated them. He told them that all they have suffered up to now in the defeat of their armies, the loss of their Empire, and the bombing of their cities, was only a foretaste of what is coming ; that our operations in French North Africa will enable us to bring the weight of the war home to the Fascist State, and subject it to prolonged and shattering air attack. This is the tragic plight into which Mussolini has brought Italy. Perhaps it is because he
knows Mr. Churchill's words have reached the ears of Italians, and that he must make some answer to the scathing denunciation of himself, that Mussolini made his rabid speech to the Fascist Chamber of Corporations, repeating Mr. Churchill's words in what was evidently an appeal to desperation. Neither Mr. Churchill nor anyone else in this country takes any pleasure in the prospect of the horrors which it will be our military duty to inflict on the Italian people in the course of smashing their war industry. Punish- ment is aimed not at them, but at Mussolini and his vile regime. We know well that there are millions of Italians who long for liberation from his rule, and millj-ans of others who detest the war and eagerly desire peace. It would be a mistake to exaggerate the power of the Italian Socialist Party, which has not ceased to carry on its work underground and fan the flames of discontent, but it has succeeded this week in circulating a manifesto calling on " all free and resolute Italians to an immediate general and determined campaign of civil disobedience." In America Mr. Cordell Hull followed up Mr. Churchill's warning by saying that he would not be surprised to hear of mutinous behaviour in the Italian army. At this stage in the war, when German divisions are pouring through Italy, and German aircraft and submarines are operating from Italian bases, we have no choice but to deliver ever more crushing blows on Italian towns ; but the people of Italy must be assured that in proportion as they help to resist their own regime, or at least refrain from co-operating with it, they may expect a speedier release from war, and more considerate treatment from the United Nations.
Toulon and After
The whole world has been moved by the tragic sacrifice of the French sailors who destroyed their own ships and lost their lives to prevent the fleet at Toulon from being seized by the Germans. The pity of it is that a mistaken loyalty to Petain stopped them from taking their ships to safety when there was still time, and that they should have chosen the less effectual course and voluntarily paid the penalty with their lives. But their heroism has set a flame burning in the hearts of Frenchmen within France and outside which will not be put out, and it will help to show in its true light the fatuity of the policy so obstinately pursued by Vichy. Hitler's long explanatory letter to Petain is a piece of characteristic hypocrisy. In it he seeks to explain away his action in seizing Toulon in violation of the Armistice terms, an action which needs no other explanation than that he has no longer anything to gain through Vichy co-operation in Africa, &rid no further reason for conciliating Petain in respect of Toulon or anything else. The Vichy Government has now nothing whatever to offer him except what he chooses to exact through Laval and its other pliable elements. The armed French forces to which Petain makes miser- able appeals for loyalty to his own ineffectual person are now, at Hitler's orders, about to be demobilised. Soldiers are already being ordered to report for labour service, and it is only too likely that thousands of them will be sent off to virtual slavery in Germany. The disreputable Deat, rival to Laval for the patronage of the Nazis, is demanding that the new Phalange Africaine, a force of toughs intended for use against the enemies of Germany, should become the nucleus of a new French Army. Where in all this is Marshal Petain, the aged, unhappy, duped figure-head, surrounded with the most villainous set of men that has ever been set to administer France? The Vichy Government in reality has ceased to have a separate existence. There is left now only the people of France, with the occupying Germans and their quislings.
The Position of Darlan
Members of Parliament are perfectly right to demand facilities to discuss the position of Admiral Darlan in North Africa, and the more palpably so in view of the additional functions with which the Admiral seems to be investing himself. It now appears that in the capacity of High Commissioner for French North Africa he has set up a Frenrh Imperial Council in Algiers which, according to the radio report, has now become the " official structure " for defending the general interest of the Empire, and for " represent- ing France in the world." Until such time as France is able to choose a Government of her own it is unthinkable that the Allies should recognise the authority of any body of men to represent France in the world unless it included General de Gaulle and his Fighting French colleagues. We can understand General Eisen- hower's object in co-operating with the acting rulers of North Africa in order to hasten the expulsion of the Germans, but it would be intolerable that French administrators, professedly acting in the name of Petain and the old Vichy Government, should be allowed to stake out claims to be the legitimate representatives of France. It is true that the new Council includes General Giraud among its members. That is a considerable reassurance, and if Darlan, from whatever motives, intends to co-operate genuinely with the Allies it is obviously wise to make use of him for immediate military purposes. But there must be no prejudicing of the future. Only the people of France can decide the future of France—when they are free to decide it.
Colonial Policy
It is all too rarely that the House of Commons has an opportunity of discussing colonial questions, and last Thursday's debate was particularly important, first, because a new Colonial Secretary, Mr. Oliver Stanley, has come into office, and, secondly, because the whole question of colonial administration has been the subject of criticism in the United States as well as here. The Colonial Office is a unique department in the sense that it has not merely administra- tive functions to perform, but that also to a large extent it has to represent the interests of backward people who have no fully representative institutions of their own. The people of Britain, who can only act through Parliament, are—pending the period when the Colonies develop self-governing institu- tions of their own—in a position of trusteeship ; and there is a strong case for having a Standing Committee of members keenly interested in the Colonies who should keep a watchful eye on the situation, and be in close touch with the Minister. But the Minister himself is necessarily the key to the whole situation. The problem of the Colonies is infinitely varied. It concerns widely differing types of dependmcies in the Far East, in Africa and in the Caribbean, and races in various stages of development, whose political, economic and social welfare must be approached from many angles. The problem is not one which can be grasped in a moment, nor one which can merely be left to civil servants. It needs the devoted study of a clear-sighted Minister, who will set himself to master his subject, and develop a consistent, continuous policy. But how can this be when no Minister is left long enough at his job to see the fruits of what he was beginning to sow? Before Mr. Oliver Stanley was Lord Cranborne, and before him Lord Lloyd, and before him four others in the preceding four years. We are reminded that there have been eighteen Secretaries of State since the last war. It is essential that the right man—and Lord Cranborne was proving himself to be such a man—should be kept at the job over a long period of time, and build up a policy commensurate with Britain's responsibilities for the Colonial Empire.
The Reconstruction Debate
Tuesday's debate on reconstruction in the House of Commons will have served a useful purpose, if only because it has probably convinced the Government that the House and the country expect periodic reports of actual progress made in planning and firm decisions reached. Much of Sir William Jowitt's speech was con- cerned with broad principles, but the time is approaching when these principles must be translated into practical programmes. Sir William had something to say about post-war demobilisation, continued rationing and controls of industry and finance in the transitional period, and about housing, education, provision against unemployment, town and country planning and the Beveridge report, now under consideration. Unemployment is a question whose solution depends in great measure on international policy, but Sir William rightly recognises that schemes of capital reconstruction must be prepared in advance to meet the eventuality of a slump. Such schemes, it must, be remembered, cannot be hurriedly im- provised. In the sphere of education the Board of Education has certainly been busy for a long time, and there is a good deal of agreement in regard to essential reforms which should be the subject of legislation during the war. Mr. Butler's Bill will be eagerly awaited. In housing there are heavy arrears to be made up apart from the work that will have to be done in replacing buildings destroyed by enemy action. Here alone is a field of unemployment which will engage much labour for many years. But this is work which must be subject to considerations of national planning.
Town and Country Planning
So far as planning is concerned, some important decisions have been made, and some still await further inquiry. The Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt reports have all been for some time under consideration. It was to the last that Sir William Jowitt gave special attention in his speech. He announced the decision of the Government that executive responsibility for town and country planning in England and Wales must rest with a Minister of Town and Country Planning, whose department would constitute a separate Ministry. The machinery proposed differs from that suggested in the Uthwatt report, which would have given the central control to a non- departmental Minister presiding over a committee of Ministers, and have entrusted much of the work of central planning to a per- manent commission to which powers would be delegated. The Uthwatt Committee aimed at achieving a certain freedom and elasticity through its planning commission which are likely to be lacking in an official department of State. The Government does, however, propose to establish a Permanent Commission to act under the Minister, and much will depend on how it is allowed to function. Powers are rightly to be conferred on local authorities for the com- pulsory acquisition of land. This was absolutely essential to any real planning. But the Government has not yet made up its mind about another matter second only in importance—the procedure for controlling development rights in undeveloped land. The acquisition of these rights by the State, as recommended in the report, is not only the simplest but the surest and justest method. Sir William said that the Government had not yet come to a conclusion about a levy on site values, this being a controversial matter. There is scarcely anything in these reports which will not be made a matter for controversy by one interest or another. If the Government is too timid about possible controversy no national planning scheme worth the name can possibly be devised.
