Manawatu Daily Times Preparing for Disarmament

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6519, 7 April 1931, Page 6

Manawatu Daily Times Preparing for Disarmament

In France, Germany, Great Britain and other European countries a remarkable campaign in favour of disarmament has begun. The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Henderson, has led the tvay, addressing himself indeed not merely to a British audience but to a continental audience, not merely to foreign officials but to the great masses. For, as he well sees, the success of the Disarmament Conference to be held next February will depend not so much on the representatives of the various nations as on the force of public opinion behind them. .

Undoubtedly, there is a great body of feeling in favour of disarmament, but how far it' is conscious of itself, how far it can become articulate, how far it can exert pressure on the Governments is debatable. With many, the sentiment is vague and expresses itself only in the most general terms. But during tli-e coming- year it is necessary, if the Disarmament Conference is to acconiplish real work, that this widespread sentiment should not remain passive but should become active. It must first be stirred up by the leaders in order that it may strengthen their hands.

Thus Viscount Cecil, writing in the Berliner BoerscnCourier, lays the greatest stress on public opinion. Constitutional difficulties would doubtless prevent a general referendum ; but he proposes that a number of questions should be put as directly and to as large a number of persons as possible. These questions, abbreviated, are: —

1. Arc you willing that your children now at (school shall bo killed or mutilated because certain groups of States -would solve thenproblems by the use of arms?

3. Arc you satisfied that the nations should spend 1-1,000,000 gold marks a day for armaments while there is unemployment and misery ? 3. -Are you disposed to insist that your Government shall settie international discussions by pacific means 1

The draft convention drawn up by the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, should not be regarded as a solution of the problem of disarmament. It is merely a framework into which the Disarmament Conference in February, 1932, hopes to fit definite figures. Everybody is in agreement on the desirability of disarmament. But when it comes to putting down figures, most of the statesmen display a caution that is probably excessive. A will disarm if B will give more solid assurances than have yet been given, or that perhaps can be given, of its peaceful intentions; and B will disarm if it can be certain of the designs of A. This kind of affirmation is made over and over again, and there is a tendency to continue in a vicious circle.

One nation says that security must precede disarmament, and refuses to regard disarmament as an clement of security. Another nation considers that it has already disarmed, or has been disarmed, sufficiently, and declares that if the others do not disarm to its level it will re-arm to their level. A typical statement, actually taken from a leading European newspaper, is as follows:

Disarmament, effected in bad conditions, whose principal result would be to render proportionally stronger other powers, which, above ail, dcsiro to profit by the weakness of tho countries which would stabilise the existing Europe, and recover'their predominant position of 1914, would have, in reality, the most disastrous consequences. The campaign against the treaties makes the situation extremely delicate.

It is obvious that if the discussion continually revolves around the supposed danger to this or that country in the event of disarmament, no subffiantial progress will be possible.

It is for the peoples, therefore, to make it dear that they are not the perpetual victims of fear; and that the real danger lies precisely in the maintenance of armaments in the expectation of attacks that are, in some sense, invited by the constant struggle to obtain and maintain superiority over their neighbours. For those neighbours, on their side, are alarmed at this superiority, and will not cease to strain every effort to overcome it.

The questions of Lord Cecil are pertinent. Do the peoples wish to spend money like water on armaments which arc likely to provoke strife, or do they wish to rely on pacific means of settling international disputes ? The choice is before them, and it must be made during the coming year. No pains should be spared in the next few months to put the issues clearly, and to insure, the success of the Disarmament .Qonferenee of 1932.