DISARMAMENT PROBLEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21098, 4 February 1932, Page 11

DISARMAMENT PROBLEM.

DIFFICULTIES IN PATH.

DISTRUST AMONG NATIONS. STATE OF EUROPE TO-DAY. BY R. M. ALGIE. At the present moment the thoughts of millions of people turn toward Geneva. In that very beautiful Swiss city there are now gathered the chosen representatives of many nations. Their avowed purpose is to make yet another attempt to secure international peace by a drastic limitation of armaments. v More than ever before they carry with them the best wishes of a fairly strong public opinion.

They should be fortified in their efforts by their knowledge of the existence of helpful resolutions from hundreds, possibly thousands, of leagues and societies throughout the world urging them to use their utmost endeavours to bring about a lasting peace among men. They know, too, that church communities throughout the length and breadth of the earth are united in prayer for a successful outcome from their deliberations.

Ihey meet at, a place where lake, forest and mountain combine to produce an effect of unrivalled scenic grandeur and peace, and where the undoubted charms of Nature may very well play a subtle, and not inconsiderable, part in producing a welcome atmosphere of idealism and goodwill.

Truly these are favourable auspices. And yet one cannot completely smother the ever-present voice of doubt and misgiving. One is inevitably tempted to ask whether there is any real prospect of success. It is good to be as optimistic as we can ; hut it is essential that we should have regard to the facts and appreciate the difficulties. One sometimes wishes that this great question could be submitted to a referendum in which the people of all nations might participate. If this were done, and if the voters could be left entirely free from disturbing political propaganda, and if they could be asked to express, upon their true consciences, their voice for or against disarmament, it. is fairly certain that their judgment would overwhelmingly favour the abandonment of war as a means of disposing of international differences. Referendum Impossible. Unfortunately, such a referendum is at present a complete and utter impossibility. There are many States which could not set up the necessary machinery for carrying such a scheme into effect; there are many, too, whose people as a whole are not sufficiently free and intelligent to be trusted with such a vote even if it could be given to them. And it is perfectly obvious that a decision from some only of the nations would bo quite useless; ft few States could not disarm if the remainder were free to continue their preparations for war. It follows that the problem of disarmament must be left to be settled by the accredited spokesmen of those nations which are now represented at Geneva. The success or failure of the conference is indissolubly connected with the politics of Europe as a whole, and an examination of European affairs suggests at once that there are at least two great difficulties which obstruct the path toward a speedy and effective disarmament. The first obstacle li<»s in the fact that a great reform requires the able and convinced advocacy of an acknowledged leader and champion ; the voice of authority and prestige in such cases is a factor of tremendous importance. And what State is there in Europe to-day which can speak vith such a voice and dominate, or at least lead, the deliberations of the Conference. The second obstacle is the very real of distrust and fear which characterises the international negotiations of Europe to-day. A World's Leader Wanted.

First, then, as to the question of leadership, a. process of elimination reveals the sad fact that, at the present time, there is no State which would be likely to be readily acclaimed as a leader by the majority of European Powers. This very question was recently discussed in a series of lectures delivered in London by Mr. 11. Wickham Steed, for many years foreign editor of the Times, and an acknowledged authority on the subject. He pointed out that although England holds a deservedly high place in Continental diplomacy, and although she is recognised universally as representing a high standard in fair dealing, altruism, and general good faith, yet her economic position and her many internal problems are such as to demand the whole of the attention and energies of her political leaders, and she is not, for the time being, at least, in a position to seek to impose her will upon the rest of Europe. France, on her part, may be quite willing to assume a position of dominance in European policy, but, as Mr. Steed pointed out, she is too intensely national in her outlook to command any degree of willing recognition of her claims to leadership. Germany and Austria could not lead, even if they wished to do so. Russian influence is disliked and dreaded on all sides, and most of all by those States which aro in a position to be well able to judge. Italy under Signor Mussolini has made amazing progress in the last 10 years; but other States may be justifiably nervous of a country which obeys implicitly the will of one man, especially when that man is believed to be very ambitious and when he is supported by a million sworn and enthusiastic adherents.

Mr. Steed concluded by stating that the Government of the new Republic of Czecho-Slovakia contains many men who are well qualified by scholarship and by administrative ability to give a beneficial direction to European policy; the people too, by reason of their high code of civic and political conduct, are properly entitled to a due measure of respect for

their views in international councils. But, unfortunately, their numbers are relatively so small that their influence could not be as great as it deserves to be. No other European State need be considered at the moment.

Outside of Europe, only the United States might claim the role of leadership, but for many reasons such a claim would hardly meet with much support. And so we discover that we are not likely to have among the great Powers any single State whose influence would be acknowledged as dominant by any considerable group of other countries.

Then there remains the second difficulty, namely, the existence among the nations of a feeling of distrust and of insecurity which must obviously militate against the success of any scheme of general disarmament. The central factor in this feeling is the attitude of France and Germany toward each other.

It is a most difficult task to try to weigh justly the rival claims of these two countries for popular sympathy. We begin by siding with France because we know that twice in living memory her territory has been invaded and in part devastated by the military forces of Germany; we know that she'has had to sustain tho brunt of two fearful conflicts: it was her homes, her farms and her factories that were ruthlessly destroyed. And bearing these facts in mind, we feel that we can at least understand her fear of further invasion and her determination to secure herself as far as possible from any repetition of such attacks by Germany. Yet, on the other hand, we feel that she makes just a little too much of her own wrongs and sufferings, that she is unduly obstructive in international negotiations, and that she is, perhaps, too parsimonious and grasping in her desire for financial independence and security. Finances of Germany. But, when we turn to consider the case of Germany, we lose faith in her protestations of inability to pay her debts when we remember the huge sums she has already spent since the war in the improvement of her roads, railways, rolling stock and bridges, and in the development of electrical reticulation. We deplore her duplicity in building amazingly efficient pocket-battleships while l>e gK'«g for relief from her financial commitments. And we despise her disregard of her legal duties in seeking, contrary to her treaty obligations, to establish a customs union between Austria and herself. We reluctantly come to the conclusion that, politically, Germany is much as she was in 1914 and 'that she still regards her international agreements as matters of expediency and mere scraps of paper. Yet we know that we have to support her financially, for, if Germany talis, misery and even ruin must be the lot of many another State.

Then there is the, case of Italy. Her ambitions in regard to the eastern side of the Adriatic Sea are very well known. She would gladly welcome a chance of incorporating Yugoslavia into her dominions: she has already difficulties of an acute character with France, and she would probably find an alliance with Germany even it only temporary—a great benefit io herself. Possible Troubles.

finally, there is the widespread apprehension of Russian influence. Truly, this fear, though of considerable significance in the larger States, is real and vital in such countries as Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, and compels the peoples of these countries to maintain armies which they dare not at the moment give up. So we see that Europe is a veritable hot-bed of possible troubles. But for her economic difliculties. one could safely say that a spark in one corner could set the whole Continent ablaze as easily as was the case in 1914. And in the' face ot these possibilities of a. further conflagration, what chance of success has a scheme for general reduction of armaments ?

Let. us try not to be too pessimistic: let. us be prepared to make an\* sacrifice in the cause of international peace; every attempt toward that end, even if its measure of success be but slight, is w ell worth the effort. And let us never lose sight of the fact that, another great war in the relatively near future would cripple, if if did not completely destroy, our Western civilisation.