The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1933. “A MESSAGE TO EUROPE”

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 149, 20 March 1933, Page 8

The Dominion. MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1933. “A MESSAGE TO EUROPE”

The impression conveyed by the British Prime Minister s speech at the Disarmament Conference, reported on Saturday, 15 that he is making the effort of his life to save it from failure. Mr. MacDonald,” we are told, “spoke as though the whole future depended on the impression he made. He pleaded, whispered, shouted, threatened, banged the rostrum. ‘You are not mannequins, he declared. ‘You are men. Our plan is not a message from Mars. It is a message to Europe.’ ” It may be sincerely hoped that the effort will be successful, ine moral effect of agreement even upon a modest programme of disarmament would be considerable. Mr. MacDonald has not asked for much, but his plan if adopted would establish a foundation upon which future conferences might build with confidence and security, lhe first part of the proposed Convention aims at that. The Pact of Paris (the Kellogg-Briand document) is proposed as a basis of security. Any breach, or threatened breach of the Pact, is to be referred to a conference, arranged through the League of Nations. It is at this point that hope begins to waver. The Convention is based on the assumption that confidence will be reposed by all concerned in the efficacy of conferences as a means of settling disputes and averting hostilities. The world already knows by disappointing experience that the conference method has been tried and found wanting. Innumerable conferences large and small, and an International Commission, failed to stop Japan from invading Chinese territory, and this in face of the fact that the position was, on paper, supposed to be safeguarded by no less than three agreements, namely, the League Covenant, the Paris Pact, and the Nine-Power Treaty for the regulation of affairs in the Far East. It may be possible to agree that the British specifications with regard to the items to be embraced in the programme of disarmament are, generally speaking, reasonable and practicable. As Mr. MacDonald points out,-they represent “the maximum results already achieved in detailed and separate discussion in committees and subcommittees.” But that is not the crux of the question. The practicability of the programme depends upon the willingness of the nations to abide by conference decisions. In the light of recent experience there is no assurance worth considering that they would do so. The “unofficial” wars in South America and in the Far East are present testimonies to the fact that jungle law is still stronger than majority rule in conference. The first is a primitive reaction to a human emergency ip which the ultimate issue is life or death. The law of the jungle is not concerned with ethical questions. Might, it declares, is right. Violence,, not argument, is the weapon. The law of nations Js an attempt to establish argument for violence, and to establish the principle that international disputes are not makers of life or death, but questions of right or wrong. Right, therefore, is might. Until- this has been triumphantly and convincingly vindicated the law of the jungle will continue to darken the horizons of international relationships, and the nations will remain reluctant to discard the weapons of violence for the logic of argument. Vindication is not yet in sight, and for this reason it seems impossible to hope that Mr. MacDonald’s lofty and eloquent appeal will be successful on the present occasion. There will be, no doubt, some fine phrase-making compliments to the British Premier, and vague hopes and undertakings for the future. Of definite action, however, there seems little prospect. Europe is too unsettled and apprehensive about the future. A League victory over the Far Eastern crisis might have made all the difference. The failure was fatal.