DISARMAMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 91, 18 April 1932, Page 7

DISARMAMENT

{CONFERENCE SPEECH

SIR THOMAS WILFORD

THE WORLD'S HOPE

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, 25th February. It is now possible to give a verbatim report of Sir Thomas Wilford's speech ia the general discussion at the Disarmament Conference. He spoke ■at the eleventh plenary meeting.

_ "New Zealand,' by virtue of her situation in the Pacific, an ocean which washes the shores of countries carrying more than half the population of the world, is much concerned at the war now being waged between Chinese and Japanese there. The Council of the. League has been proved to be incompetent to settle the trouble. This does not mean that the League of Nations as a League has failed, for we realise that with the League as a rallying point the failure up to the present can be turned into an ultimate success if through the Eastern trouble an end to such catastrophies can be hastened through disarmament which will surely prevent such outbreaks. The League of_ Nations jhas awakened a world conscience- in favour of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration instead of by war, and it has provided the place and the opportunity where Ministers of Foreign Affairs may meet round a table and discuss their difficulties instead of writing notes or ultimatums. It is also the genesis of this Conference, the spade work for which has been laboriously but cheerfully undertaken by the representatives of many Powers, especially during the last five years. The solution of the Disarmament problem is the acid test for the League. We must not forget that without the machinery of^-the League this great and all-important gathering could hardly have crystallised inio being. Great speeches have already been made, differing in some respects, but having, nevertheless, in their heart and core, a clarion call to action. Tha time for formulas and pious resolutions has passed; let us translate our thoughts and ideas into action, for a sorry and tired world looks to-day to this Conjference asats present hope. SEASONABLE DEFENCE. "New Zealand asks for nothing more than to put her case for reasonable deifence requirements before this Tribunal, land will take the opportunity in Committee later to set out the details of «uca requirements. "New Zealand, with a population of h million and a half, has little industrial development, and is in. the same position _as many other small countries in that it has to purchase most of ita Btores from abroad; and the market for purchase is more than 12,000 miles away,.ana consequently the cost to my country of the purchase of any wax material is very great indeed. Economic conditions have forced us for the present to cut down our expenditure below the bread line. "The defence policy of New Zealand is in: a • state of transition from a compulsory to a voluntary system, due again largely to economic pressure, though the system of compulsion established by statute law in 1909 has not been repealed. Under that Act a Territorial force of 30,000 may be established and maintained. Our Aii Force is at present quite negligible. "Other countries whose defence requirements have been definitely ascertained, cannot be compared with New Zealand- The country itself is very young and in an early stage of development. "We consider the draft convention an acceptable basis for evolving a permanent agreement, though we would like to- empfiasise the necessity foi greater clarity in expression and language. .To.give an. example, we consider a clear and concise definition of the woTd 'effective' is most necessary, A MAD RACE. • "We believe that armed peace is little less of a burden than war, and when we realise that the countries of the world are spending in this time of economic stress no less than £1000 a minute in the maintenance of armed forces and material, surely there is (justification for' petitions from every part of the world praying and beseeching ns to call a halt in what must ba admitted to be a mad race. "New Zealand - subscribed generally to the aims' and aspirations of the speakers representing Great Britain, the United States, and Italy in this debate. When Sir John Simon said that ? security depends on size, geography, and special needs,' we found bnrselves in complete accord with what !»6 believe to be accurate definition. "All most agree that it is the veriest jfarce to call off the armament race of the old weapons and leave it in full J>last for the newer weapons which wiU toake the, old weapons obsolete. FRENCH PROPOSALS. ,"It has been said, I think wisely, that "Disarmament is not an official act, it is an evolutionary process, and its progress and value will largely be governed by the thorough exposure of the reasoned requirements of the problem in an atmosphere which regards political differences as things to be overcome.' We . will gladly join in a. thorough examination of the proposals of France, but we think that those proposals are at the most supplementary to the purpose for which the Conference ■was called. It has, however, been a matter of surprise and also of regret to me that few arguments pro and con have been forthcoming. What is the reason-for hesitancy and why have most speakers merely given the proposals' a nod in passing?, First of all St will have to be realised that under the proposals the gigantic force to be available of at least two million men, properly equipped, cannot be a fairy godmother or a perpetual nurse to this Warring world. It must be able to ■exercise authority, and quickly. It Beem^ to me that the French proposals have been framed merely from a European outlook. Great distances and the difficulties consequent on great distances seem to have been forgotten. Obviously the proposals could not cover the qitelling of trouble that might arise, say, for example, between America and. Bussia. Again, supposing this. international army of at least two millions had been un fait accompli five months ago, how would it have been transported to the Far East and by whom? Has the question been carefully and thoroughly considered in. relation to Article 2J. of the Covenant? I could think of a great many more questions to ask.

"The French^ proposals are that the League of Nations is to be'armed to the teeth. Suppose every delegate said ' Yes' to them, it would not dispose of the purpose of our coming together; we would have to begin again where the interruption occurred, for it can hardly be said to come within our order of reference. My idea is that no delegate came to this Conference to find a method of spending money in the creation of an army, even if it is an international one.

•"I cannot see in any Peace Treaty the- contemplation of an equality of armaments, but I can see contemplated reductions. Surely it cannot be argued that the French proposals would reduce armaments? It would Tather be a reieasting of the Geneva Protocol, lifting the League into the form of a super-

State, It seems to me that general, definite, and absolute prohibition in certain directipns is ■ a sounder course than unlimited preparation. There is every safeguard where preparation is prohibited, but if onyq the use is forbidden, can it be said that there are really any safeguards at all? SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT. "New Zealand was represented at Washington in 1922 and at London in 1930, and wishes to.support the retention of the Treaties arrived at -aa a foundation upon which to build the floor, walls, and roof of the House of Disarmament. "I see great differences of opinion are present in the Conference with, regard to security and disarmament. I also sense a controversy, long and difficult, with regard to the order in which those questions should be considered. I hope they will be driven in double harness and not tandem. Disarmament may connote security, but security does not necessarily result in disarmament. The competition in arms may become the parent of economic disaster. Disarmament is a method of reducing the ever-recurring call for expenditure on weapons which in a few years are either worn out or out of date. It is useless' to contemplate unless it is general. It cannot be one-sided: it must bedisarmament by the world. It camlot be done in a day, nor a year, nor a decade, but it can. be started, and it can every year 'reduce those economic burdens with, which every country in the world is overloaded. The abolition of the use of gas, aerial bombing, and bacteriological methods of warfare will be not only an economic advantage, but a humanitarian act. In 'the possession of those weapons lies the danger. 'How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done.' BOMBS AND GAS. "I do not believe there is a delegate in this great hall who would not pledge himself'to rid the world of the menace in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or similar gases, of the use of all bacteriological methods of warfare, and of the use1 of bombs from the air, which methods inflict death and untold suffering on combatants and non-combatants alike. I should like to put before the Conference an excerpt from a paper read before the League of Nations Union in 1928 by Brigadier-General Groves: 'The largest bomb yet dropped from an aeroplane weighed 4000 Ib. This bomb was dropped as an experimental test in America, and the following account of the result is illuminating. The explosions threw a dense cloud of e,-.rth to a height of 1000 ft. The crater averaged 64ft in diameter, with a depth of 19ft below the original level, and with a rim of about sft high. The volume displaced was 1000 cubic yards. The intensity of the explosion may be pictured when it is remembered that 1000 ft is twice the height of' the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral.* "Imagine, .if you can, such, a bomb dropped in a London street' between high buildings. Death, mutilation worse than death, would follow over a large area, fires would start, all essential services such as light, water, and gas would be disorganised, and hundreds of men, women, and children 'blown,' as Major Lefebure says, 'sky high.' Follow this bombing with a fog attack, and whole populations, all of whom might be noncombatants, would be wiped out. "If I am right in the assertion I have made, is it not possible, without burying these particular questions in Committees for months, to agree to have them put to the Conference for a decision by a show of hands? And when it is found, as it would_ be found, that an overwhelming majority carries these proposals for abolition, let us move on to debatable matters, of which there are so many. Is the world to understand that there is a difference of opinion upon these questions I have emphasised? There cannot surely be two opinions.' I believe that' the surest help to an agreement for positive disarmament is. to clear from the discussions which, have to take place those questions which can be settled now and for all time. . .. . WAY FOLLOWS THE WILL. "No delegate in this World Conference wishes to bargain with his neighbour, claiming the right to use poison gas, bombs, or bacteriological methods against his neighbour's right to use other weapons of war: Then let us disperse any mists of controversy with regard to these subjects and come down to the subjects which may rightly be deemed controversial. '' Though my country joins with Great Britain, the United States, Italy, and many other countries in being ready to vote for the abolition of submarines, I leave the question of submarines out of my proposals for immediate decision, for my lengthy experience of the London Naval Conference of 1930 has taught me that there is. unfortunately no agreement at present in sight with regard to these weapons of offence. "There will be no absolute finality to the work of disarmament in our time, for new methods of destruction will be discovered as time goes on, since" we know that in. warfare that which, seems a wild idea to-day may be an accepted fact to-morrow. -"When we have given the worldan assurance that poison . gas, bombing from the air, and bacteriological methods of warfare have been -unanimously outlawed, then let us get to work, and- let an inquiry be inclusive, not exclusive, so that all avenues may he explored in the search for practical disarmament in a reasonable time.

"My country sent 10 per cent, of its population to the Great War. It paid a heavy penalty. It feels the strength of Mr. Hugh Gibson's statement that 'victors and vanquished are victims.' I hesitate to believe that when there is a will there cannot be found a way."