FORCE, LEGAL AND ILLEGAL
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] Sim,—General Crozier's logic is difficult to follow. For what reason does he describe those who argue that war should be transferred to police work as " amateurs " ? Not a few dis- tinguished generals and admirals are taking an active part in the propagation of such a principle. They may be making
themselves ridiculous, as he assumes, but this does not make them amateurs !
The Archbishop of York is perfectly justified in stating that no army is "legally" armed' except when it-has authority from the League to' employ. force. National forces raised' for the purpose of self-defence are non-legal because no over- riding international law exists. The best argument against the gerieral'i thesis 'is' his OWn staternent `that " an operation ' depends on what it is all about." An 'operation-tO uphold a' law is a police operation, a similar operation to settle a 'quartet
is war. - --
The 'whole' position can be best described by' an ilinstration, originating, I think, from Sir Norman Angell : " Arm the judge not the litigants." Such a procedure may be difficult— it cannot be described as either illogical or " indirect."
Dick Sheppard, whom. the General upholds (but does not . follow) is equally direct ;' as a matter Of conscience he refuses to have illy dealings with lethal weapons for any Purpose: I should be highly surprised,, however, if the latter ',Auld' prefer such lethal Weapons in the hands of thOseWho 'think as General Crozier than legalised and restrained tinder the principles -suggested by' the Archbishop 'of York and :sup- porters of the Covenant of the League of Nations..=–YOuri, &c.; Pinup S. kustroan.. S. Mary's Grange, Easthorpe, Kelvedon, Essex.
Previous page
