THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1932 AMERICA AND ARMS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21325, 28 October 1932, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1932 AMERICA AND ARMS

If there were no presidential election engrossing the American people, Mr. Hoover's blunt words about disarmament would be worth their full face value. Even when discounted because of domestic circumstances in the United States, they still have considerable weight and influence. In "themselves, they are challenging, and Europe must answer them on their merits. Unfortunately for their popular effect in other countries, however, they cannot be heard there without thought of their possible intention as electioneering utterances, at least in part. To deem this an unworthy suspicion is to forget how often, if not always, matters of foreign policy have been made a shuttlecock in American politics. As recently as June last, at the very time of the beginning of this keen struggle for the presidency, Mr. Hoover threw at Geneva liis bombshell proposal that the armies and the navies of the world should be cut down by one-third and that, chemical warfare, tanks, large mobile guns and bombing aircraft should be - abolished. The timing of that proposal ..may have had more !to do with Washington than with Geneva. At all events, it was then linked to the question of war debts, the American people being accustomed to their politicians' argument that, if Europe could afford to spend vast sums on armaments, it could afford to pay what it owed to the citizens of the United States. Had not Mr. Hoover himself earlier dropped hints that, if Europe would severely cut this expenditure, tho United States might be willing to reconsider the debts'? Now, rather significantly, he says nothing about this aspect of disarmament. Why? It has not ceased to be relevant. Apparently, in the last round of th« fight between Republicans and Democrats, reviewing the chances of battle and fujly aware of the unpopularity of war-debt revision, he tactfully leaves this aspect alone, preferring to take a stand that comports with national ambition while throwing the blame for a renewed race in armaments upon Europe. This reading of his proposal, even if the opinion be only partially right, is unhappily inevitable. He has been openly and bitterly charged with unpatriotic readiness to consider the good of Europe. To his credit, he has not hidden this readiness, although he has manifestly preferred to talk of such things in terms of the Avhole world rather than of the European nations. But his opponents, recalling his work in and for Europe during the war years,'have not scrupled to inflame American feeling against him as too prone to consider that rival focus of national and' international activity. This has been as unfair as it has been unfortunate. Nevertheless, the terms of this notice now served on the world leave no doubt of a measure of partypolitical purpose. Land armaments are to be reduced as a pre-requisite to further naval reductions, and unless the Disarmament Conference accomplishes its professed purpose the United States will be compelled to build a navy equal to that of the most powerful nation in the world: by this decision his Government stands. Land forces and munitions are of negligible concern to his country ; naval strength is primarily and predominantly essential. Mainly, its interests are in the Pacific, stretching right across to the bellicose Orient. Territory as well as trade may be in jeopardy. His Government, he says, has not weakened in its care of those interests, in spite of its patiericeJ.hroughout negotiations for the reduction and limitation of arms; now, having had its patience tried, it must reluctantly . redouble that care, for disturbed conditions prevail everywhere. This is excellent material for an election manifesto. Yet it must be, as already said, considered by Europe on its merits. Whether the ultimatum mean one for Europe and two . for the American electors, or whether this estimate ought generously to be reversed. the fact remains that, for whomsoever chiefly intended, it is a word of international importance. Geneva, foi' all its mountainous labour, has produced only a ridiculous mouse. For this failure, the competition of national interests, although there was full friendliness up to the time of Germany's dudgeon, has been largely to blame. Germany has demanded equality of status, even the unquestioned light to rearm ; France has wanted to keep Germany disarmed and feared militant developments of such factors as the old enemy's advance in civil aviation ; Britain, wishful for a return to insular security, has pressed for the abolition of submarines; Italy, lacking coal and oil, has wanted to weaken France and particularly to restrict military mechanisation : Japan and the United States have been obviously anxious to protect themselves against each other; Russia's eagerness to see the strength of all capitalist nations whittled away is clear. This view of the negotiations does not necessarily deny a sincere wish all round to get rid of war and the temptation to engage in it. It simply recognises the part naturally played by national fact and outlook, and America has been as much to blame as any other Power. Now, after the failure of the first stage of the conference to do much more than elicit diverse opinions and dally with major projects, including Mr. Hoover's earlier proposal, this second American venture may prompt decisive steps. But the conference, save for its examining and executive bodies, is in recess, and before it resumes in plenary session the American election will be over. It is improbable that any immediate practical heed can be given to even so resolute a demand, made by a Government having to fight hard for its life.