NATIONAL SECURITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21769, 7 April 1934, Page 10

NATIONAL SECURITY

It is possible that the work of the Disarmament Conference may be made easier by its discussion of national security as a matter having to do with an arms convention only, not with the general question arising from the peace treaties. This general question has been repeatedly given prominence by France. At every turn of debate at Geneva and in parleys of smaller groups, France has emphasised the necessity of providing guarantees against aggression. This has been a typically French attitude, justified by unhappy history, but Poland and other nations have taken a similar stand. It can be easily understood and is entitled to sympathetic consideration, especially when treaty revision is mentioned as an international policy. The time will come when security, as a general principle, must be embodied in undertakings of peace. Again and again it has been accepted as part and parcel of schemes to outlaw war and when any further step of that sort is taken it cannot be safely or wisely ignored. However, the Disarmament Conference has a task distinct from such schemes. An implicit hope of lessening the risk of war resides, of course, in proposals to reduce and limit the means by which it is waged, but they can be best examined as in themselves worthy of discussion. Hope of their good effect is one thing; the making of them acceptable and workable is another. In the latter context, security can be treated in a conveniently restricted sense, as equivalent to a guarantee of faithful implementing of disarmament pledges, not to a guarantee of immunity from foreign attack. The peace treaties, therefore, need not come into the argument; the new position created by any disarmament convention certainly must. Thus a step can be taken now—if this useful distinction be adopted without reference to the older and more awkward question. It would be a step toward enduring peace, but not as long and sure a step as the framing of a new international understanding about territorial and political rights. Germany, no doubt, looks chiefly for the securing of such rights, and so do France, Poland and others. But if they can be persuaded to treat security as at present involving only guarantees that disarmament covenants will be kept, the work at Geneva may be hopefully resumed.