“Far Away”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 244, 28 September 1922, Page 5

“Far Away”

DISARMAMENT OF NATIONS. WHERE COMMITTEE’S PROPOSALS FAIL. ENERGY AND DETERMINATION WANTED. (Received 28, 12.30 p.m.) Geneva, Sept. 27. Sir Joseph Cook said he did not want to throw cold water on the efforts of the disarmament committee; nevertheless he was not satisfied. It seemed to be assumed that material disarmament was dependent on moral disarmament. That policy would not help the financial problem, exchanges, etc. If no better progress was possible than the disarmaments report proposed, disarmament was far away. It would take a decade before anything substantial was done under the present proposals. Though progress was slow he hoped it would he correspondingly sure. He praised Lord Robert Cecil’s work, but vigorous and prompt action was needed. Disarmament was the very crux of the League’s existence. If it failed in this it would fail in the principles constituting the very reason for its existence. Sir Joseph Cook admitted that the outlook was not clear, hut they must go forward with greater energy and determination. He was disappointed by the Italian and French speakers, who seemed disposed to make the economic situation the supreme question of the moment. ERSTWHILE ENEMIES’ ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. He was afraid they generally did not recognise that the Allies had handicapped themselves against their erstwhile enemies by disarming. The latter, were unduly, favoured in the economic struggle. If the Allies continued to carry the burden of armaments they would handicap themselves. Disarming Germany relieved her of that burden, while we still carried ours, thereby giving Germany a tremendous economic advantage. Before the war Germany had on an average a million conscripted men, which were now released for industry. The taxpayer was correspondingly relieved. By the time we voluntarily disarmed under these proposals Germany would have already achieved enormous progress industrially, and it would be difficult for us to overtake her. If half our economic competitors were relieved of armament burdens while we staggered under them the former must achieve the leading industrial position, therefor* a greater obligation was upon us to urgently address ourselves to this task. THE DUTY OF BIG NATIONS. The French delegate, M. Jouvenal, urged that large States should safeguard the smaller ones. Large States really needed relief. Some of the largest States were more heavily burdened proportionately than the small. He suggested that they should not wait fulfilment of the whole scheme of disarmament, but by experiments while carrying out international enquiries for the purpose of evolving a larger scheme. RISKS TAKEN BY BRITISH. The Hon. H. A. L. Fisher pointed out that Britain had taken risks m disarming, and the overseas dominions were following the example. The Australian Budget was this year reducing , the defence vote 25 per cent, on the total, and was doing that witlwut awaiting Larger schemes- Australia j was therefore taking some risks in the j'

interest of the general cause of disarmament. Would anybody else take similar risks? If some European States would do so. disarmament would begin, and they would progress immediately. He recommended Britain and Australia’s example to other nations. After four vears of war the world had a tragic spectacle of nations spending 20 per cent, of their revenues on preparations to destroy each other. He counselled nations to abandon the war spirit, otherwise the armamental burden would mean slow, hut sure and steady suicide.—(A. and N.Z.)