Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1932. DRAMATIC INTERVENTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 175, 25 June 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1932. DRAMATIC INTERVENTION.

Nearly five months have elapsed since the delegates to the World Disarmament Conference assembled at Geneva. The measure of achievement in that time may be estimated from the frankly critical tone in which public men and leaders of thought have surveyed the Conference. After the spate of talk at the opening sessions, the experts were entrusted with the work of finding a satisfactory basis to accomplish disarmament in each sphere of offensive weapons and form of war, but nothing- definite to give the world cause for hope lias yet emerged from their deliberations. For instance, the Naval Commission, it was reported on May 27, had been unable to reconcile the divergent views regarding the offensive or defensive qualities of naval armaments. Similarly, the Air Committee had failed to agree, while on June 7th the Land Disarmament Commission reported that unanimity could not be reached on the offensiveness of a single land weapon. These reports created a feeling of despair in Geneva and other European capitals of any good emanating from the Conference. The Archbishop of York and several of his episcopal colleagues were moved to write to the London Press expressing their sharp disappointment that no progress was beingmade, and their fear of a breakdown of the Conference. The Churches are fully conscious of their great duty to mankind in furthering the movement to limit armaments, and to preserve the peace of the world. Their interest in the Geneva deliberations is world-wide and sincere. The disappointment expressed by the Archbishop of York is real. It, too, is felt by many people throughout the world. Mr Arthur Henderson said almost simultaneously that the “moment had come when great decisions must, and woxild, be made,” but nothing constructive has appeared in the interval from Geneva. In the midst of this uncertainty there comes from Washington the dramatic intervention of Mr Hoover with a proposal to abolish tanks, chemical warfare and large mobile guns; to reduce by one-third the strength of all land armies above the so-called police requirement; to abolish all bombing planes and bombardment from the air; to reduce the number of submarines (with a limit on the tonnage permitted) and the Treaty number and tonnage of all battleships by one-tliird, and aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers by one-fourtli. It may be recalled that the leader of the United States delegation (Mr Hugh Gibson) told the Conference at the outset that the United States entered it determined to achieve substantial progress towards disarmament. Its proposals were made under nine headings, the chief of which were the abolition of submarines, lethal gases and bacteriological warfare, reduced naval armaments, and restrictions upon tanks and mobile guns. Mr Hoover, it will be seen, goes much further. He lias proposed a reduction by one-third. of the world’s armies; the abolition of tanks, chemical warfare, mobile guns, bombing planes and aerial bombardments, and sweeping-

naval reductions, estimated to save at least two thousand million pounds in the next ten years. These proposals were discussed between the British and American delegates when Mr Ramsay MacDonald and Sir John Simon reached Geneva the other day to lay a “far reaching” British plan before the representatives of the Powers. Both countries are said to bo in close accord on many ideas put forward. The difficulty will be to apply the United States plan to national requirements. France, for instance, opposes the abolition of the submarine and still demands security. Germany alleges violation of the agreement for the nations to disarm, while she has been stripped of her armaments. She objects to the plan as being “too moderate.” The French delegate’s hostility is stated to have been unmistakable, while promising sympathetic consideration. Britain has a wide-flung- Empire to defend, but even so has given.the world a fine lead in the curtailment of armaments. While cautious, the British Press, and the delegates at Geneva, promise serious and prompt consideration. Italy spontaneously has accepted Mr Hoover’s proposals, but Japan has reserved judgment. There may be something in the French allegation that this is an electioneering manoeuvre by Mr Hoover, but even so, to a world tired of the cross-currents and jealousies so evident at Geneva, the proposals are welcome as suggesting a broad scheme for the Conference delegates to examine. They are a challenge to other nations to “lay their cards on the table.” It is obvious that, until European Powers seriously decide to follow the lead of Great Britain and curtail their armaments expenditure, the United States will not consider a reduction of their war debts.