The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1922. THE ARMAMENTS CONFERENCE

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 194, 17 August 1922, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1922. THE ARMAMENTS CONFERENCE

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that -.eeds resistance, For th-e future in the dista'.ice, A"ji the oood that we can do. '. , ___!

"""^*~* I One of the most interesting public I documents submitted to Parliament this year is the report in which Sir John Salmond gives an account of the proceedings of the Washington Conference convened by President Harding to consider the reduction of naval armaments. By thi« time the world is fairly familiar with the leading features of the international agreements arranged at Washington, but Sir John Salmond, as our ollicial representative, is able to throw light upon certain aspects of the Conference which so far do not seem to have been dearly appreciated by the general public We hope that our i readers will attach due importance to Sir John Salmond's assurance that the primary object of the Conference was linancial —in oilier words, that its chief purpose was not to render war impossible j or to propose universal disarmament, ' but to check "the insensate waste" ! which has marked "the unrestricted and ruinous competition" of .the nations en- J gaged in building and equipping huge navies in time of peace. With all de- ; ference to Sir John's professional know- I ledge and acumen, we are inclined to | think that his statement that warfare ! is "not discouraged" by the Washington : treaties, and that these compacts have ' "no ethical significance,' , represents a! somewhat exaggerated and one-sided view of the situation. For whatever may be the strictly legal interpretation of the treaties, and though it may be literally true that theee agreements do not bind the contracting parties to refrain from war or even from preparing against ; the possibility of war in certain ways, the fact remains that the summoning of the Conference kself and the acceptance of these treaties by its members marks J a definite advance in the direction of world-peace. The force and weight of ' public opinion is certainly a factor to be reckoned, with in such problems, and it j will hardly be denied that the opposition to war on ' ethical grounds has been j greatly strengthened by the results of the Conference. Jn fact, Sir John Sal- . mond virtually contradict? his assertion ; that the Conference had "no ethical sip-; nifienncc" wjien he tells us that, if any j signatory Power in future breaks the rules of warfare adopted by the Confer- ; ence. "it will stand convicted before the civilised world as guilty of a grave , breach, not only of humanity but of ( public honour." | . Another point of special interest and ( importance to us is Sir John Salmoml's ( definition of the political rank and stand- ( j ing conferred on the Dominions by the , presence of their representatives at i j Washington. The true significance of ' ! this event we are told is "not that those Dominions have acquired for either ( international or constitutional purposes 1 any form of independent status, but that ] they have now been given a voice m Uic 1 management of the international rela- ; ] tions of the Empire ac a singly tin-, 1 divided unity, relations which were for- ' merly within the exclusive control of the Government of Great Britain." Our : , delegates were thus called to Washing- i ton for the purpose of being consulted ' "as to nil matters there in issue con- • renting the Empire. ,, As Sir John Salmond points out. the Dominion delegates ! c were virtually in agreement with the 8 representatives of Britain on all the , ' questions of outstanding importanre j * which the conference discussed. But he j i holds that if it had not been so, and ! I the Imperial delegates had felt com-' s polled to come to any decision in which any of the Dominion dele- < gates could not acquiesce, then "it 1 would have been within the autho- ' rity of the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain to , assent- to the Treaty- ; on behalf of thw Empire as a -whole, a without regard to fetich dissent." Any : - one of the Dominions might have refused ' through ite delegate to accept the j j ment in question, but this, in Sir John i t Salmond'a opinion, "would have, had no i i effect on the international operations ' and obligations of the treat}' so far a* j the whole Empire was concerned." All h this is no doubt perfectly accurate from ? tlie standpoint of international law, and ; v it may help us to remember that though ■ . the Empire is really "a federation of : allied States."' the Dominions as younger t members of the Imperial family do not i r yet possess full political independence. ! l It is only in the League of Nations that, i r owing to the special organisation of that d body, ''self-governing colonies are c admitted as members in their own right, y as if they were independent States"; and it may be doubted whether all the Domi- s nion representatives at the Peace Con- £ ference realised the full significance of *" this change at the time. The Dominions' j status at the Washington Conference is rl a reaffirmation of the position otherwise d occupied b" then? in international law.