THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1934 WRANGLING ABOUT PEACE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21782, 23 April 1934, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1934 WRANGLING ABOUT PEACE

Efforts to bring about a real mea sure of disarmament continue amicl multiplying difficulties. Some of these are inherent in the condition of things bequeathed by centuries to this age; the rest are created by national outlooks and policies of the present day, and embarrass discussion with a persistence that constantly threatens to be fatal. In the main, the mutual antagonism of France and Germany is the most awkvard stumbling-block. This obstae e now obstructs the path to progress., Jt is. still, possible for any Power to make individual proposals at Geneva, and current comment urges that this liberty should be used. Unfortunately, experience uhors that such a procedure is unororrising. The long path taken by the Disarmament Conference is littered with, the ruins of individual proj jets. It opened with a fruitless general discussion of the ideal set by the occasion, an unexceptionable proceeding, reasonable enough, but no i lore than a series of statements more or less academic. As soon as the relation of these statements to the draft convention of the preparatory commission was set out in tabi lar form, for the information of the public and the guidance of delegates, there emerged a confusion of cross purposes. Their reconciliation in a comprehensive document for the vote, even the debate, of the whole assembly, was soon so obviously impracticable that by common consent the draft convention, good as it undoubtedly was as a framework, was shelved. Then, the way clear for national proposals, one after another of tliese had place only to be supersede d, until Germany's withdrawal, ostensibly motived by impatience with the delay and particularly inspired by eagerness to be declared "equal in ntatus, A brought business to a standstill. Germany's action ushered in a new period and type of negotiation ; the affairs of the conference were entrusted to a group responsible for keeping it alive and a succession of diplomatic parleys among leading Powers engaged the services of prominent statesmen, particularly representatives of the British Foreign Office. They have been unable to attain definite success, and there is nothing better than a vague pronpect of even partial agreement. Ab this stage the memorandum of some of the less conspicuous Powers—Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark—is noteworthy as indicating the pivotal cauise of trouble. This is Germany's refusal to undertake international duty. Whatever be the cause of Germany's withdrawal from both the conference and the League, the withdrawal brought chaos to the negotiations. The memorandum rightly asserts that the.wrangle about "guarantees of security" cannot be ended harmoniously so long as Germany maintains the stand taken on the independent right to rearm. "Germany's return to the League," it says, "undoubtedly would represent an important contribution to a solution o:li the grave problem of collective security." The truth of this is manifest when the leading facts of the European situation are considered. A Germany aloof from collaboration, and especially a Germany under Nazi dominance, fostering exclusively national ardour and devoting thought and means to military expression of the ardour, is a menace to general peace. The German Government has told the world, through the British Government, that it cannot consider returning to the League until a solution has been found for the question of disarmament. Little thought is needed for the discovery that this attitude is unreasonable. The question of disarmament cannot be settled without unity of purpose and plan on the part of the chief Powers, among whom Germany, with a reserved seat on the Council of the League, is expected to be active. Germany prefers to be inactive, save in obstruction. It cannot be forgotten that Germany's decision to withdraw was announced after definite assurances of "equality of status" had been solemnly and publicly given by Britain and other Powers; that is, after the way was cleared for Germany's resumption of cooperation on Germany's own terms, Germany refused to cooperate. That looks very much like a prior intention to bring the conference to an end without its reaching any vital conclusion ; in plain words, Germany does not want disarmament, choosing rather to exploit a grievance and to rearm. France cannot equally be charged with insincerity. It is true that the French demands for security are hampering negotiations, but at critical junctures in their progress France has more than once given proof of magnanimity. M. Briand and other French spokesmen in previous years have risked much in their bold advocacy of measures plainly aiding the cause of peace. No thing could have been more splendid than the French welcome of Germany to the League. To M. Briand is primarily due the Pact of Paris, by which war was renounced as an instrument of national policy in the settlement of disputes. The day of the Briand-Kellogg Pact seems now far away, and the document itself makes rather strange reading in tTieise changed times, but the breaches made in the scheme are not attributable to France. It is fair to say that Germany's attitude at Nazi prompting: is responsible for the weakening of French sentiment in favour of disarmament. The whole complexion of the crusade of peace was altered for the worse with the rise of Hitler. Yet France continued to share it, until

Hitler's ascendancy was followed by the German defiance of obligations imposed under the peace treaties, which defiance was naturally interpreted as involving a threat against France. How far it does mean such a threat is little to the point. German expenditure on arms has flagrantly increased ; so, it may be said, has French : but the starting-point of the unhappy departure, if Europe alone he considered, was in the German resolve to rearm rather than continue negotiations. In the statement now made by Germany's Minister of Air—that France is armed to Ihe teeth and will not surrender anything— is a falsity proved by much, and whatever truth be in it now ought to be examined in the light of events in Germany under the new regime. Geneva will be sorely exercised to end the wrangle and divert thought back to channels that once offered better things.