DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20969, 4 September 1931, Page 8

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

The suggestion that the League conference on disarmament be postponed from February next is one not .to be taken lightly. It is not surprising that the United States Government has voiced an official protest against postponement, as the Hoover plan for dealing with war debts was expressly associated with an acceptance by European nations of the idea that a reduction in expenditure on armaments should be speedily made. Sp close was this express association that agreement to reduce armaments was virtually a stipulation vital to the Hoover proposal. This proposal was made quite frankly, indeed, with a view to creating an international atmosphere favourable to the friendly discussion of disarmament. Quite apart from the American protest, however, the wisdom of proceeding with the conference at the earliest possible date is evident. When the League Assembly, a year ago, considered the time frfr the opening of the conference, difficulty was met. The question was raised in the third commission of the Assembly, and there a motion was pressed that the date x be one prior to the end of this year. , Count Bernstorff, speaking for Germany, complained with some bitterness that "the conference had been deferred year after year, through the failure of the preparatory commission to complete • its work. Although this complaint did scant justice to the commission, for its task was beset with difficulty, there was some sympathy with it; but the selection of a fixed, early date for the conference was deprecated, even by those who deplored delay. Lord Cecil counselled patience, and in the end the Assembly contented itself with expressing a desire for a date in 1931 but left the choice to the Council, which has since chosen February 2, 1932. After that prolonged and frank discussion, with its outcome in the decisive action of the Council, the suggestion of postponement is highly impolitic. It is attributed t" French influence, a fact calculated to arouse strong German protests. Germany has habitually taken this attitude on the question; by the Versailles Treaty disarmament was thrust on her, but only as a prelude to disarmament by others in terms of the League Covenant, and untii this extension takes place she is treated unjustly. Thus, suggestion of further delay is bound to provoke ill-feeling and to prejudice the conference.