DISARMAMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1932, Page 8

DISARMAMENT

IDEAL OF NATIONS-

THE ADVANCES MADE

WASTE; ;OF<?WAR

Speaking to, members and friends of the Wellington branch, of the League of_ Nations Union last evening, the Bey. Gordon McKenzie spoke , of : disarmament as an ideal of civilised .nations to be reached, not at once, ;but by steady progressive stages; ■ Already, he said, great advances' had been made towards the ideal. .;■■:■;-'-.■ .--.: ; : "Methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes ■ were centuries old in-the East and were practised among important European cities in the Middle Ages, but what is, now known' as arbitration really began in the year 1794 in the Jay Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, chiefly for the settlement of the boundary between U.b.A. and Canada.. During the 19th century/.471 disputes settled by JEte*1? 11 ' d ™ 191- 8 8? tieaties existed, .for the compulsory arbitration of disputes. As Arnold Forster'said, in no case has a 1 dispute once submitted to arbitration ended in-war. ' The success of arbitration'in disputes among nations, together with the Covenant of the; League, led to.the creation of a permanent body of judges at The Hague in 1922. When the Court oi International,' Justice 'was established it was hoped that all; nations woulc accept the, obligation to. submit to iti judgment all important cases of dispute and particularly legal' eases. That hopi was not fulfilled,' chiefly because th< Great Powers-could not agree, an< there was therefore instituted wha was known as. the "optional clause ' which, in 192.9, forty-two States signed The Covenant of the League provide that air States shall try "peaceful pro cedure" with' regard to "'■ disputes an< the General .Act for Pacific Settlemen of International Disputes that signa tory nations" shall bind themselves t< peaceful settlement — a n- impoftan difference, and an attempt to close thi gap in the Covenant. XUp to-1930 thi League dealt' with seventeen' dispute which threatened-to end in war. Fur ther - efforts, to-fridge ; the'gap forau lated;,outside .the framework 'of "thi League were; contained in the Treat' i .of' Mutual Guarantee, ttie Geneva Pro tocol, 'the liqcarno. Treaties',' the,.Pac of Earis, and: the, Kellogg'Pact. L;ook ed at f ronv an historical point"'of' vie\ great progress had' already been made WAR JKJT INEVITABLE. > The' policy . O f "'splendid:'isolation' was \\ no longer; practicable,' continnei Mr. McKenzie; the increasing; onehes of the world; was'inor"e"lhan""a welcom gain; it was a 1; portent.. Civilised lai had!- ended assault and1* 'battery as ; nieanj of settling, disputes among md: v,iduals,, jthpugh it;had not, .and ,coul not; end disputes.;.- The"- argument' ! coji monly used- against the League o Nations that "war"is.inevitable; me have always-"fought land! men"alwaj will-fight, "could be challenged asflat,untruth.. Quarrels were inevitabli but fighting .was.not.;; ' ;"■ !,' Disarmament- was fpossible,"not, bji cause'it .called for. an'.unattainabl idealj but.because it 'frankly admitte the 'possibility7l of: international i;:,aii agreement f- and -^^ set -: about r- disch'argiri the passibli.-of^nations -by,ways--les intolerable than that of nvar vi l It.»wa not: yet practicable ; politics to:.tal about abolition of armaments,' and, whe he ■- used* the;vword;:" disarmament f '*Vh ; pf, the.limitaition; and-progressiv ,Te9uo.tipn?.pf;.armaDien,ts. %-_,-_ ,;; ,;■/ J;:|: : BEITAIN'S TIiEpQES. V Britain,! was pledged'^'to^disamamei through the tPeac'e Conference and" a Peace Treaties," and; was-one of fift nations'; whichi signed claus,e,,j!B) of* tli League's ' agreement. leVognising ;tht "the maintenance of. peace requir< the- reduction, of .national armaments 1 the' lowest •' • pointnational safety and. the enforeeknei by, common.action ..of international obi gations."■ ■ "-" ■ :V'~v; ' ■.'■■■'.. ' >The. first * great '-reason: for"disarm ment was mqral) a second rwas;the«aio] prosaic business,of.money.f,The';'upkee of fighting^ services was snotoriously c: pensive/and 'England' Was* 'to-fla divided' between self-satisfaction"aii ansdety "because - ; she had cut;• down.: tn armament ekpendituriß. to a f little voyi two million.pounds per week.';, The; cbi of armament, waslargely ajihodern on In; 1858 r'Europe .spent 95 millions o fighting forces, less than England spen( alone to-day.;' In. 1883*thenfignre; wi 163 millions,' in -.1908 299. millions, an in' 1913 .486 nuilions.:f-In.t 1931 Enroj probably spentra-'littlermore than i 1913. .Those figuresj^did. ;not,- include the' cost ■ of'Wars^-but/merely ■ of -preparation for■ wars..^, ;. \. ; It had been said that "disarmament would; create r : unemployment, |But '(_ that was fallacious when a.long view was taken. .Expenditure; upon armament was -wasted money;- the; same amount spent along, productive lines would proviae; vastly, more '^employment;. in -the end.- Gradual reduction ,of armaments wduld: spread the' effect upon!,employment,', and,in any case,,it.jwbuld^Lbe cheaper; for thY nation .'to keep, the" men '^on ,thb;dole/'.*;t! •';',';',,',,' iA^ : ...V J. 7 : . . The ■ third great .reason" for, disarmament among ■ all nations^ was the. rapidly increasing^inachinery».for.»mass production of death. Centuries ago the moat was the castle?s niaiii fd.efe,hcfe;i to-day ■ attack was thef only defence^.and to-day •the.target was chariged"from the '• thin red -line. to ■, the._. npn-combatants be--yond; 'War:as it would be'carried on between great Powers •in the future was capable, of -bringing, all that _we know to-day as, civilisation jto a sudden • and appalling;.!eM;' (r"'* y '■- the EtrßOPis^r situation;^ .. Kefefring to th?; European ,position, to-da'y,l Mr.' MoKeniie'"^^^ that-there; were .two' main 'schools of thought; one,, led by France^jlia.t^LfiK^.WAthoutPthe! sword cannot stand,; and the other, Ted by England rand rAroeri6|,;;.that: Force is no 'remedy;' \Fraricb J'stood% out .in 1919 till England*; and- -tho United States' indicate^.-..'■wjyingness ~ to., enter into 'mutual guarantees—to;'supportPrance in case of.attack. 'The United: Stateß refused to ratify the treaty,, and as 'a; iesult "England' was; also. fr«ed. from her bp'nd,'jahd'.FTarice^felt|still that she had'be'eu led into' an agree', merit-by undertakings of •a" guarantee which did -not; evoatuate.' ' Franco,;in other words," was still fighting for; the balance of power, arid was still prepared to disarm if Euarantee<'. '.. 'assistauco .in. <;ase .of attack. ■"'..-•' ;■.'.. '.^'''-'. ,".'"''