THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1931. GERMANY AND PEACE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20819, 11 March 1931, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1931. GERMANY AND PEACE.

In the militant speech of the German Minister of Dcfcnco a mixture of motives is discernible; when they are all considered, it becomes doubtful whether in what he says there is anything to cause serious alarm. His ardent demand for general disarmament seems, at first sight, strangely buttressed. He complains about the strength and readiness of the French Army, hints at the possibility oE German repudiation of the Versailles Treaty, and suggests that his country has been compelled to disarm without this compulsion being accompanied by tho promised disarming of other Powers. This sounds very querulous, even quarrelsome. But regard must be paid to many things before accepting this view. First, there is the present political situation in Germany. At the general elections in September last, the composition of the Reichstag was changed in a way betokening the rise in influence of the National Socialists. Their seats, previously numbering twelve, were increased to 107. This, while an evidence of a popular impatience with the Government, gave the party almost sufficient strength in Parliament to control national policy. Their own profession was to be "anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, antiLocarno, anti-League and antiYoung Plan." To placate them, il has been necessary for the Government, a composite production of many parties, to make more of Germany's national rights and claims than had been lately made. No doubt, in arguing for his estimates, the Defence Minister has been mindful to emphasise, for their benefit and that of their supporters, an aspect of the case that otherwise would have been lightly touched, if touched at all. Hence the hints concerning repudiation of the disarmament clauses of the peace treaty.

It is next advisable to note recent changes in the European situation. Movements of international co-opera-tion have proceeded apart from Germany. In the economic sphere there has been a union of interests, at least to the point of friendly consultation on a policy of mutual aid, concerning European markets for the agricultural products of a number of the eastern countries. This union has been inspired, in great measure, by Poland, of whose rise to power there is considerable German suspicion. In the recent naval parleys of Britain with France and Italy there has been found occasion of similar suspicion of designs to place Germany at a disadvantage. These movements, in themselves, have been quite unrelated to Germany in intent; those looking on find it difficult to see in them any intrigue against Germany. But there they are, and German voices have been raised in a protest professing to rest on fear. In particular, as the German Minister's speech betrays, there is a fear of France; but it is the possible development of friendly partnership in commerce and mutual ordering of naval policies into coalitions inimical to Germany that is dreaded, not by those members of the German Government who are fully seized of the facts, but by a considerable section of the German people, of which the Government at this juncture must take particular account. To make the presenting of the defence estimates an opportunity for covert reference to this possible danger from anti-German coalitions is, therefore, tactically useful for the Government. It cannot be reasonably made to mean that the Minister seriously thinks them an actual menace. There can be attributed absolute sincerity, nevertheless, to his evident wish to use the occasion for house-top talk to Europe and the world, in an endeavour to press for a speedy general disarmament that will serve German ends. Whatever Germany may do in designing "pocket" battleships and permitting militant parades, her hope lies rather in freedom to develop industrially and commercially, and this hope comes nearer to fulfilment with every step taken toward universal renunciation of war. Her responsible leaders have not merely espoused this opinion as a doctrine ; they have acted on it. It is significant that at the last League Assembly, when the question of the general disarmament conference was discussed at length, the German delegation pressed for its early calling. Eventually, the fixing of the date was left at the discretion of the Council, and the German, Austrian and Hungarian delegates abstained from voting—on the express ground that the resolution did not name a date. That action well exemplifies the attitude of official Germany to disarmament. The peace treaty made the reduction imposed on Germany part of a world-wide plan ; it was precautionary, not punitive, in spite of what much ill-informed German comment has said. All the best of that country's public men have acknowledged this, and they quite consistently say, "We have been forced to disarm, but it was on a promise that other nations al*io would disarm, as soon and as thoroughly as they could." It in in conformity with that attitude that this speech may he best understood. Its tone is militant in part, but its purpose is as much concerned with "the interests of peace and European reconstruction" as with "equality of rights."

NAVIGATION LAWS. «. By decree of the maritime unions, the carrying of cargo in foreign ships between New Zealand and Australia or the Pacific Islands has been forbidden and the shipowners concerned have apparently decided to submit to the prohibition. There may be a good case for such restriction on foreign competition with ships manned by New Zealand crews, enjoying conditions and privileges superior to those obtaining under foreign flags, and already affected by severe unemployment owing to the depression in the shipping industry. Nevertheless, the unions have no constitutional power to make and enforce such rules, and have done so only by an implied threat of violent measures if their demands are ignored. A trades union is neither a legislative nor a judicial authority, and official and public condonation of such actions implies a disregard for law and order that may have grave consequences. For instance, have the unions sufficiently considered the bearing of their ban on the trcatv by which New Zealand undertook to accord most-favoured-nation treatment to Japan in matters of commerce, customs and navigation 1 They may argue that the rule applies to all foreign ships equally, but lack of discrimination does not sanctify an action entirely without constitutional support. Their proper course was to appeal to the Government, which has power under sections of the 1908 Customs Law Act, preserved by the Customs Act of 1013, to impose countervailing restrictions on ships of any foreign country which subjects British shipping to disadvantages as against its own national shipping. Part of this law dates from 1882, part of it from 1903, the latter having been passed when the United States introduced its navigation laws excluding foreign shipping from trade on the American coast and between different parts of American territory. Unless adequate reasons can lie adduced for applying these latent powers, the action of the seamen and the waterside workers will be condemned for want of justification as well as for its usurpation of powers which should be exercised only by Parliament and the Government.