DISARMAMENT AND DEFENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21702, 18 January 1934, Page 8

DISARMAMENT AND DEFENCE

A year ago, even a few months ago, Mr. Churchill's characteristic demand for a "sufficiency of defences" would commonly have been regarded as the speech of an Imperialistic diehard. To-day, whatever might be thought of his plan to defeat extremism by giving extra votes to heads of households, his counsel for improved defences does not clash with Government policy, except, perhaps, in the matter of degree. Quite suddenly the attitude of the Government has changed from one of patient waiting and example to that of guarded security. It may be that recent events in Europe have revealed a menace not yet disclosed ; possibly a time-limit fixed by Britain for response by the other Powers to her ten years' gesture has expired, but there may be serious significance in the words of Mr. Baldwin when, in a debate on the question six weeks ago, he said he could not tell all he knew without destroying the chance of the disarmament proposals being adopted. Britain's painful difficulty at the moment is to keep the disarmament conference alive, while, at the same time, making provision for safety particularly in the air. Upon the day when Mr. Baldwin declared in the Commons that it was clear that Britain could not stand alone in the world with regard to defence in the air, on sea or on the land, the Marquess of Londonderry, Secretary of State for Air, explained the Government policy in the House of Lords even more clearly. Britain, which possessed the greatest Air Force at the end of the war, was now, he said, fifth, Bussia, the United States, France and Italy all being superior in strength. These countries had steadily increased their air establishments, while Britain had reduced hers. "Our example has, unhappily, elicited no response whatever in any quarter of fehe world," he said. "It is, therefore, a path which obviously can no longer be followed, and we must, however reluctantly, abandon the policy of unilateral disarmament." Parity could be achieved by complete abolition, by other nations reducing £o Britain's level, by Britain building up to the level of the strongest Power, or by a combination of the second and third alternatives. Anxiously Britain and the whole Empire wait for the verdict of Geneva, but, as Mr. Baldwin stated, agreement must come soon or there will be no agreement. And there stands what may well be the hope of modern civilisation. But appalling though the thought of Europe rejecting the disarmament proposals may be, Britain dare not expose herself to the risks of which Mr. Baldwin knows more than he can tell.