Women's International League
BRITISH SECTION OF THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM.
20th November, 1924.
Dear Miss Addams,
I am extremely sorry to have to trouble you with a difficult point which has arisen in connection with the decision of the W.I.L. Conference in Washington, and I am sure you will understand that the British Section is only raising the matter because of its concern with the progress of the League not only in this country, but in other parts of the world.
The point in question is the restatement of the objects of the League, and I think I cannot do better than tell you the circumstances in which my attention was called to it. I was in Constantinople in October and there met a Belgian lady whom I used to know in the old suffrage days. She is a keen pacifist as well as a feminist and has been getting into touch with some of the leading Turkish women who were anxious to form a Turkish [page 2] Section of the W.I.L. They were progressing very nicely when they received from Geneva the Report of the Washington Conference and the Object in its new form. This the Turkish women could not accept; they were not prepared to bind themselves to oppose "all defensive war," nor to adopt the absolutist pacifist doctrine which the new object expresses.
Finally, after a good deal of discussion they decided they must abandon the formation of a W.I.L. and as they were anxious to enter into relations with women of other countries form a suffrage society and join the I.W.S.A instead. The Turkish women are not strong pacifists, but they long for peace and need to educate themselves to see how peace can be obtained. The new object at once prevents such people from joining the League, and as it seems to me, deprives it of its educational character as it obliges would-be members to declare themselves extreme pacifists at the outset.
Until this incident called my attention to the Report of the Washington Conference, I was not aware that the object had been changed and was a good deal surprised to find that this had been done without putting the question before National Sections, and without discussion at the Congress, on the grounds that no new matter had been introduced. The whole subject was considered at the last meeting of the Executive of the British Section and I was asked to write to you about it. [page 3]
I feel great diffidence at this point in dealing with the matter, for I cannot but feel that I am questioning your ruling from the chair at Washington. I should not be bold enough to do so if I did not know how much more importance you attach to the realities than to forms. The view of the Committee is broadly speaking: --
(1) That in our opinion new matter has been introduced. By specifying "offensive and defensive war" the wording of the Object has been given a twist in the direction of absolutist pacifism which it certainly had not before and the phrase "all preparation for war" seems to us to be clearly new matter;
(2) That even if no new matter had been introduced, the wording of the Object ought not to be altered unless the proposal to do so has been brought before National Sections and discussed by them;
(3) That the effect of this change will be bad for the League. Large numbers of our members would leave if we asked them to accept this formula, and we should not be in a position to carry on the educational work for peace and understanding, which we believe to be the most important function of the W.I.L. If we can only accept members who subscribe to an absolute pacifist formula, we abandon the attempt to educate and simply form a little band of those who are already extremists. The same thing [page 4] applies to National Sections. I feel very doubtful whether some of our existing National Sections will find it possible to adhere loyally to the new Object, and certainly their sphere of work will be limited. Equally, in those parts of the world where a work of reconciliation is most needed, it will be impossible to form new National Sections unless composed of those who are already extreme pacifists. The Turkish incident is a case in point. It is worth noticing further that under the new object the W.I.L. would be obliged to oppose the Geneva Protocol, which not only [recognizes] war but lays down specific proposals for "preparation for war."
For all these reasons the Executive of the British Section feels that it cannot accept the new wording of the Object. We propose to continue to work as though the old wording were still in force, and shall make no use at all of the new one. We shall in fact regard the new wording as in suspense until the whole matter has been discussed at the next International Congress. We hope that you will [recognize] this as a possible course of action, and that it may prove a way out of the difficulty both for existing National Sections and for new National Sections who find it impossible to accept the new Object.
Yours very sincerely,
Kathleen D. Courtney [signed]
Comments