GERMANY'S DEMAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 263, 5 November 1932, Page 8 (Supplement)

GERMANY'S DEMAND.

EQUALITY IN ARMAMENTS.

EUROPE'S VICTORS AND VICTIMS.

IF DISARMAMENT FAILS?

(By SENATOR WILLIAM E. BORAH.)

I do not fully share the views generally expressed with reference to Germany's demand for equality .in armaments. But before I state these views, for what they may be worth, I wish to express the hope that, regardless of Germany's rights and Germany's demands, she will thoroughly co-operate in the matter of disarmament at Geneva. I feel ehe can best realise her aims and purposes in the matter of equality by doing so, and I am sure it is best for the rest of the world that she take that course. I have no hesitancy in declaring that Germany's demand for equality is natural, not only natural, but essentially and fundamently just. The desire for equality in all respects in the family of nations is inherent and inextinguishable in the hearts and minds of every selfrespecting people. This question of equality is far more than the technical question of the weight of armaments between Germany and the signatories of the Versailles Treaty. It involves the deeper and wider problem whether the Governments of Europe have arrived at the point where they are willing to deal with each other upon a basis of peace rather than that of war—upon principles of equality and justice. Such are the principles obtaining between nations ill time of peace, and the question is: Whether-we have reached the place where we are willing to consider our relationship upon the basis of peace. If the terms and principles of the Versailles Treaty, based upon the theory of victor and victim, are still in full force and are to remain so, disarmament will be, as it thus has been, a failure. There is nothing more unreasonable, more unfair, 110 greater obstacle ,to world recovery, than the idea of holding a great nation within the bounds established at the close of the war. Shall Equality he the Basis? The great question is: Shall all nations be treated upon the basis, of equality? That is the supreme question which lias been raised. The other signatories have it within their power not only to meet this demand of equality with Germany by disarming, but by doing 60 to serve the cause of peace and to render an; incalculable service to humanity. The plea for the sanctity of treaties is sound, but it should and must include all parties. The Versailles Treaty has not been observed with reference to disarmament by the Governments which dictated its terms and contemporaneously construed them. Instead of Europe disarming, as it was bound to do, if the spirit of the treaty was to be observed, it has been arming ever since the Versailles Treaty was written. Germany does not claim, as I understand, that 6he has a technical right to disregard the Versailles Treaty. But all the world knows the spirit of the treaty has been disregarded by the other signatories, and Germany claims that under such circumstances her case is entitled to be heard in a court of conscience. Germany has disarmed. Her demand is that the other Powers give her a position of equality—not that she be permitted to arm. It is due to the other nations that Europe is an armed camp— that 1 Europe has an army of 4,500,000 men—that tho leading nations are extorting from their tax-ridden people five billion dollars a year for armaments. Now, these nations have not been arming against Germany, for she has been disarmed. Nevertheless, they have been arming upon a stupendous and indefensible scale. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed Germany was disarmed, her ships sunk, her colonies torn, away, her territory divided, Hungary and Austria severed, torn apart, economically crippled to the point of penury. The Central Powers were reduced to impotencv. Nevertheless, the Allies are spending billions for armaments. The question of disarmament has been and now is the problem of those who came victorious out of the war, and dictated their own terms to the conquered. If disarmament fails, the fearful obliquy must rest with those who won the war. Outside the Pale. We promote peace pacts, we. urge disarmament, we Tfrould have universal peace, but we exclude from our consideration and from all our plans, estrange from our circle and exclude from our glorious scheme for a better world, onesixth of the earth's surface and 160,000,000 people. For fourteen years the Government of Russia has stood up against intrigues from within and conspiracies from without. It is a stable Government. The United States, the Soviet Government of Russia, are both signers of the Kellogg pact. The representatives. of this Government and the representatives of the Soviet Government of Russia met at London and discussed for days the wheat problem. Our representatives sit near the Soviet representatives at Geneva, I understand they bow nervously to one another, but do not speajk—in the open. But we refuse to do that which make 3 for amity, for peace, for disarmament. How deep and impelling is our desire for peace, for goodwill on earth and among men? My view is that we have come to the period in this awful situation—millions hungry, armament expenditures increasing— deepening distress among the people and heavier burdens for them to carry—when we must seek spiritual disarmament. When we must put in practice that which we preach.—N.A.N.A.