The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 18, 1921. LEAGUE AND CONFERENCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10955, 18 July 1921, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JULY 18, 1921. LEAGUE AND CONFERENCE

Surely the most peculiar, the most uncalled-for, the most pessimistic utterance in regard to President Harding’s invitation to the Allied and Associated Powers to take part with, the United States in a disarmament conference, is that of the French journal,“La Liberte,” which, while favourable to the conference, “regards the propothe cablegrams inform us,- “as a death-blow to the League of Nations.” Perhaps “La Liberte’s” outlook on the matter is coloured by Mr Harding’s frequent attacks on the ( League during his Presidential campaign and his avowed preference for “an Association of Nations that would mean the same thing to everybody.” But, in that ease, it is very certain that “La Liberte” is attaching far too much importance to electioneering speeches intended for home consumption only, and having no seri-ously-meani? bearing upon international affairs. It is true that a recent speech by Colonel Harvey, the American Ambassador in London, contained a regrettable echo or reflection of. President Harding’s election references to the League. Colonel Harvey, indeed, declared that the United States would never enter the League. His speech, however, was at once condemned at "Washington—in diplomatic terms, of course—as, not a true reflection but a distortion of the President’s views, and those of the Republican Party. generally, in regard to the League. As a matter of fact, while the League of Nations, is actually in being, with upwards of forty nations as" its members, and with good work to its credit, such as the setting up of the International Court of Justice, the anti-typhus campaign, and so forth, the Association of is not even, internationally speaking, “in the |air’’; and in America itself the project has. never advanced beyond the very vaguest and most shadowy stage. With General Smuts, a horn statesman, as he v has proved himself on more than one occasion, and a man of keenest intuitions, we are convinced that the disarmament conference, far from proving a deathblow to the League of Nations, is very likely to be the bridge over which the United States will enter the League. Unless we are very much mistaken, the proposal has been put forward with that very object in view. During the Presidential campaign it was all very well for the Republican Party and its candidate to “play polities” at the expense of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles. But, when President Harding was returned with an overwhelming Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, it was a very different matter. Upon the Republican President and upon his party there then fell the full weight of responsibility, not only for the interests of the United States, but for the peaco of the world. It speedily became manifest that if the United States did not give'up its selfish policy of isolation from world politics, and did not co-operate to the utmost with other nations in maintaining the world’s peace, a mad race of armaments, to bo followed by a second world-war, involving the utter breakdown of our twentieth century civilisation, was absolutely inevitable. Obviously, no Association of Nations, of tho very vaguest, most shadowy, most Impalpable charactc-, could avail any-, thing as a bulwark against suoh a war. Only the League of Nations, and that buttressed and strengthened to the uttermost, could bo regarded as affording an adequate safeguard. The ono problem loft for sane, practical statesmanship to solve was, therefore: How can the United States take, most speedily, most gracefully, and thus most effectively for the securing of tho world’s peaco, tho curve that rVill land it in tho League of Nations ?

That was the problem; and wo believe that, in his proposal for an Allied conference on disarmament, preceded by a preliminary conference between tho nations most directly concerned in Pacific or Far Eaater," nnestions,

President Harding has found the best possible solution. Though the disarmament conference has been arranged outside the League of Nations, and that fact may, to the short-sighted, seem to constitute at once a slight upon and a menace towards the League, we are convinced that, but for the existence of the League of Nations, but for the widespread international co-operation it has already made jioesible, and but for the general atmosphere of goodwill it has dissemi- ' tinted, the proposal for a disarmament conference would never have been made; or, if it had been made, it would not have met with the immediate and cordial response that has greeted President Harding’s message. The “Daily News” puts the matter in the r.ight perspective when it says: The exhaustion of Europe may alone suffice to transfer to .yet unexhausted fields the fever which ravaged Europe. There is less to prevent the Pacific becoming the storm centre of the world now that the tempest has worn itself out elsewhere, and nothing to -prevent it except a resolution by the League of Nations that it shall not happen. To the realisation of 'that resolve President Harding’s message is a notable step. For our part, we regard President Harding’s message, not as a menace,' but as a most notable tribute to the League of Nations. Undoubtedly, we hold, his invitation to the Allied and Associated Powers to confer with America, first on the problems of the Pacific and then on the disarmament problem as a whole, was prompted by a keen realisation of the fact that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, except a resolution by tho League of Nations that it shall not happen, to prevent the Pacific becoming the storm centre of the world. Hence the step he has taken is fraught with hopes of the greatest,, promise of the brightest, for the world’s peace. Here, too, is the truest and best answer to the- carping critics, who express disappointment that the earliest hopes in regard to the League of Nations have not yet been fulfilled, and maintain that it is not only inefficient but far too costly. In view of the unexpected difficulties that it has had to face—not the least of which' has been the abstention of the United States—the wonder is, not that the’ League has done so little, but that it has been able to do anything at all. As Mr Balfour declared in his address to the Premiers’ Conference on the League of Nations, the resulting “gain to the world’s international co-operation is immense.” One of the first fruits of this immense gain is the calling of the disarmament conference; and should that conference cut down the expenditure on armaments even by only 1 per cent., that saving of 1 per cent, per annum will far more than cover the entire cost of the League.