Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1934. OPTIMISM AT GENEVA

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 127, 31 May 1934, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1934. OPTIMISM AT GENEVA

Yesterday morning there were certainly not many people in this country who could have said how long it was since the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference had-held its last meeting, but the question was answered before the day was over. The message which early in the afternoon reported the meeting of the Commission at Geneva on Tuesday said that the interval had been more than seven months. The actual date of the last meeting was October 26, but the ignorance was not inexcusable, for ail that the Commission did on that day was to adjourn, until December 4—a date which, as there was still nothing for it to do, has from time to time been extendeU without the necessity of a meeting. Though during all .those seven months the Disarmament Conference has no, formal progress to record, : its president, VMr. Arthur Henderson, its. Bureau, and its Committees have been far from idle. They have been strenuously co-operating with the statesmen of the principal Powers concerned in the endeavour to find a way out of the;deadlock which threatens disaster. The object of the first of the adjournments mentioned was to allow Germany to: cool her passions "and to collect her thoughts. October 26 was a date almost midway between her Government's dramatic break-away from the Conference and the. League and the hearing of its 'appeal to the country for a confirmation of its action. In so far as a one-way .poll, preceded by a campaign" in which ■no man who valued his life could affordto dissent, was able to do it, the necessary authority was given. By this' time 'at" any ratc t -.the.passions of Germany have had ample time to cool, and she has shown signs of a more reasonable temper, but there is no evidence of any faltering in the resolution which has already given the competition in armaments a fresh start, and may plunge the world in another Armageddon. Even before the German electors had spoken Mr. Henderson could see that the effect of their Government's action had been to renew this disastrous competition. Speaking in London on November 6 he said: As a lesult of the -withdrawal of Japan and Germany from the League public confidence in the efficacy of the collective peace system.had weakened. .. . "What was most deplorable in this situation was that a new race in the competition for weapons of destruction had already begun. Nations appeared to. be losing the sense of world solidarity, and of the essential unity of civilisation. . . . They must make one great final effort; but even if the Conference did not succeed in securing an immediate agreement on reduction, the alternative was not to give up or weaken in their attitude to the collective peace system. They must stand by the tre.aties which were the only barrier against a new race in arms, which he described as "not a policy, but a poker game, in which, nations continually raise, their bids, and in the end death' takes the stakes." y ■.:•■' .'■'".' At Geneva a week later Mr. Henderson was sounding a less encouraging note—indeed, the only pessimistic note of his that we can recall throughout this tedious and disheartening business. He expressed himself as "so dissatisfied with the lack of evidence of a real intention on the part of Governments to push forward with the Convention that,he was contemplating resigning the presidency of the Conference." What Governments Mr. Henderson had particularly in view when he spoke in this fashion we do not know, but we trust that his own Government was not among them. Mr. Mac Donald and Sir John Simon had saved the Disarmament Conference from collapse in March by the Draft Convention which has ever since been the basis of discussion, ~ and in December they gave the diplomatists a lead by the modified proposals submitted to France ■ and Germany. The apparent harmony throughout between the British Government and the man who might have been Leader of the Opposition if he had not been made, not "ex officio" but on his own merits,' the President of the Disarmament Conference has greatly strengthened the influence of Britain. That Mr. Henderson's apparently pessimistic utterance did hot mean that he himself was losing heart, but was rather intended as a warning to keep the parties up. to the mark, was indeed bluff of the kind associated with the game that he does not consider to be a fit model for statesmen, may be inferred from the sequel. He has stuck faithfully to his thankless task, and on Monday last the gloomy article in which "The Times" was reported to. have reviewed the prospects of the Conference was relieved by the one bright spot, "Mr. 'Henderson alone'is optimistic." Before the receipt of today's re-

port from Geneva another of the Conference delegates might perhaps have been considered- to have infringed the President's monopoly of optimism. A welcome set-off to Sigrior ■ Mussolini's declaration that "the League is dying" and that "the Disarmament Conference is finished, and the re-armament conference has begun" was supplied by the report in the same message of the arrival of M;'Litvinoff, the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, at Geneva, and" the speculations and hopes \ which jt had excited. According to the "Daily Mail's" correspondent the unexpected event had "caused a sensation in diplomatic circles." The possibility that it might mark "a turning point in "European relationships", was suggested. . It was attributed in part to "Russia's anxiety to avoid a breakdown of the disarmament discussions by submitting proposals for a mutual security pact." The suggestion of an immediate and universal Locarno seems to be as far from practical politics as the immediate and universal disarmament which M. Litvinoff proposed at Geneva a few years ago, but its basis is admittedly conjectural. That he discussed with M. Barthou, the French Fbreign Minister, the disarmament problem, the relations between Russia and France, and the possibility of Russia's admission to the League is, however, definitely stated, and all this is practical politics of an eminently hopeful kind.

The arrival of M. Litvinoff at Geneva under these conditions meant that he was the most interesting, and might possibly become the most influential, ' figure at the Conference. We are told' today that his speech on Tuesday was heard with intense interest, that he did not disappoint expectations, and that his proposals had "the virtues of novelty and precision." But, so far as the meagre report enables one to judge, they must surely have disappointed the ex.pectatitfns of anybody who was looking for something definite and immediately practicable. The statement that "the total abolition of arms is the only true guarantee against Avar" may be theoretically correct, but it is certainly; not novel. It is indeed correctly described as "reaffirming the original 'Soviet doctrine," and where .does that lead? It seems to lead M. Litvinoff,to the conclusion that "the only possible peace is a disarmed peace," which apparently means that • any partial disarmament is impossible. If that; is really his opinion he may reasonably advocate the immediate scrap-" ping of the Disarmament Conference. But in the absence of a fuller report we- decline to believe him guilty of so futile and disastrous a conclusion.