The Hawera Star. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1926. LORD CECIL ON DISARMAMENT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 21 May 1926, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1926. LORD CECIL ON DISARMAMENT.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock iu Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltbam, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, AVaverley, Efokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere. Fraser Hoad and Ararata.

Particularly appropriate, in view of the sitting in Geneva of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament, and our comments thereon yesterday, is the arrival of the March number of Headway (the journal of the League of. Nations Union) Avith its report of an' interview with Viscount Cecil of ChelAvood. Still better known by his former title as Lord Robert Cecil, Viscount Cecil has been, from the inception of the League, one of its keenest and most devoted supporters. But he is uot one to alloAv himself to be carried off his feet by idealism, and always his enthusiasm has been seasoned Avith practical eommonsense. In facing this question of reduction of armaments, therefore. Lord Cecil regards i ! t as a problem of actual politics, not merely as a subject for academic discussion. Of the need, he is fully convinced. “Without disarmament,’’ he says in Head'A\ r ay, “I see no solid •hope of security in the present, or of permanent peace in the future.” He feels, too, that the broad thesis is no longer disputed. “The vast mass of the people definitely desires disarmament.” Then, touching on the possibilities of giA’ing concrete expression to this desiro of the people, he adds: Difficulties, of course, there are. Many experts declare them- to be insuperable. In fact, if some experts had their Avay any scheme of disarmament Avould be ruled quit, altogether—though I do not find that the best experts do dismiss disarmament as impossible. In any case it' is manifest that disarmament is possible. If the peoples Avant disarmament and insist that their Goyernmcuts shall bring it about, it Avill be brought about. The question is: Do the peoples really Avant disarmament, and if so, lioav much do they Avant it? Lord Cecil admits that great obstacles haA-e to be surmounted —obstacles due both to interested and disinterested opponents—but he stresses that disarmament depends on. the Avill to disarm. In speaking of “disarmament,” of course, he uses the term broadly, as meaning reduction and limitation of armaments. Passivity on the part of the public Avill damn any scheme, for progress; every publicist knoAvs that, but this English statesman puts it more directly tHan some others: c e It is? vitally important "that there should be In this country a great and instructed public, opinion in faA’Our of disarmament, and' not merely in favour, but burningly iu fn\ T 'oui —so .burningly as to set the Continent of Europe alight. ” The results achieved at Washington, it is contended, slioav Avhnt i.s possible in the Avider field to-day. For, although it is much easier to measure fleets than ai niics, and .although thero are more PoAvers concerned in the military than in the naval situation, a sincere Avisli to find a basis of understanding could accomplish av orders. It is Avith the object of finding such a baisis that the statesmen of the. Avorldi arc uoav assembled in the old Swiss lake city. From north, south, east and. Avest, delegates have come; but, as a matter of fact, the success, or failure of their deliberations, as of those of any full conference to follow, Avill depend upon, a handful of European Powers. At Washington, general agreement be-

tween Great Britain, the United States and Japan, was essential to the formulation of any definite proposals for restricting naval armament. If France, ■Russia, Germany ancl Italy could agree similarly in respect of their military establishments, it- is doubtful if any other State would make trouble. But it will not. be so easy to secure harmony among the powerful land nations as was the experience with, the naval Powers at Washington. One force only will "bring them to agreement —the voice of the peoples.