The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1933. DISARMAMENT AGAIN

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 184, 2 May 1933, Page 8

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1933. DISARMAMENT AGAIN

There docs not seem to have been any display of enthusiasm at the reassembling of the Disarmament Conference after a monlth s adjournment. The opening proceedings, furthermore, are not y honeful augury for a successful session. P The stage reached when the Conference adjourned was that the British Draft Convention had been adopted as a basis of discussion. The delegations were invited in the interval to formulate any anientments they might desire to submit to the Articles of Pait I, which relates to security. ~ , . , It was not anticipated that many amendments would be enough, forward. During the three-day debate on the Convention prior to the adjournment, not one of the thirty-six delegates who spoke expressed disapproval of it. Germany, however, has now advanced certain amendments which may wreck the Convention, if not tie Conference. „ ' These relate to her claim for equality in armaments. Un a previous occasion Germany left the Conference as a protest against being kept in a position of inferiority. To induce her to return the Five Great Powers, Britain, America, France, Italy, and Japan, assented to the claim “in principle.” She now demands that this claim should be expressed in practical terms in the proposed Convention. These are to include all weapons copsidered necessary to the defence of other nations.. The French reply is that if the amendments represent Germany’s last word there is no hope of any Disarmament Convention.” Germany’s previous argument, which is supported by various ’ writers in that country, was that her claim for equality did not imply rearmament. “She has always emphasised, says one writer,. that the principal aim of her policy is to induce other nations to disarm to the same level as herself, and thus give effect to the principle of equality.” General von Schleicher, on the same point, declared that his country would be willing to arm her military forces with cardboard shields and wooden swords if the other countries would do likewise. The amendments now submitted say in effect that if the other nations cannot come down Germany must come up. That Germany is of a mind to pursue that idea was made clear in a speech by Herr Nadolny at the final sitting before the adjournment. He insisted that all “qualitative discrimination” should disappear, but that his country, would agree to a period of transition. It is quite evidenf, therefore, that the German amendments must be disposed of before any real progress can be made. Even without any amendments at all progress must be slow. The Convention consists of 96 articles. At the rate of one a week, which, according to one experienced observer, would be good progress, it would take two years to deal with the whole of the text. “The prospect seems formidable,” says The Times, “but it need cause no consternation. ■ If firm agreement is reached in the end, it will have been worth the labour of many years.” It may be well imagined, however, that many things are likely to happen in the meantime to disturb the tenor of the proceedings. The fact that the Convention represents the sum of agreements previously reached means nothing in the present state of 'Europe. Everything in the situation, and in the outlook, appears to emphasise the French view that security must be the prior consideration. There is therefore little in the prospect to encourage the hope that the British plan will have a better fate than the others. It is possible' nevertheless, that President Roosevelt may intervene in an unexpected direction. He holds strong views on the subject.