DISARMAMENT OR—WHAT?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18673, 30 September 1922, Page 7

DISARMAMENT OR—WHAT?

It is well in the present state of the world that the question of disarmament should be kept in the foreground. The alternative to disarmament may conceivably be bankruptcy for certain nations and confusion for the others. The discussion on the progress made by the Disarmament Committee of the League of Nations was, therefore, timely as well as important, and the expression of opinion by members of the Assembly should stimulate thought with reference to the practicability of increased progress in disarmament. Even when the fullest allowance is made for the prevailing antipathy to war and the widespread distrust of militarism, it would be foolish to pretend that the task of the League is an easy one. Jealousy and suspicion have not yet ceased to affect even the great nations. Consequently they hesitate to adopt ■ a policy of far-reaching disarmament. The backward nations are also harbouring these feelings, but in addition they are in some cases overwhelmingly ambitious and look to their fighting forces to win for them a larger “place in the sun.” In large measure the League of Nations depends on the collective enlightenment of the nations for the successful development of its policy. For that reason the efforts of the branches of the League of Nations Union are worthy of unqualified commendation, and in this connection it is to be noted that the success which has attended the local branch of the Union since its formation has been of a gratifying character. A nation cannot disarm on its own initiative without incurring grave risks. On the other hand, a general policy of disarmament might be adopted with universally beneficial results. It is well to ponder the alternative to disarmament and the certainty of widespread ruin which would follow another great war. It is not merely a question of supporting the right method against the wrong method;—it is also a question of the preservation of civilisation. At this moment the great moral force of public opinion in favour of exerting every effort to prevent the recurrence of war is reinforced by the threatened danger of economic collapse as a result of the past war and of preparation for another one. But unless public opinion can be marshalled, as is being to some extent accomplished by the activities of the League of Nations Uniori, a policy of international drift might very readily develop. Sir Joseph Cook, as a representative of Australia, desires the League to move more quickly towards disarmament. Doubtless that sentiment meets with the full approval of a great majority of the people of the civilised world. Their approval would be much more helpful if translated into active advocacy. If the people of the various countries evince a keen desire for disarmament their politicians will for the most part be only too happy to agree. Germany disarmed is stronger as an industrial competitor in present circumstances than if a large portion of her population were being trained at great expense for war. According to Mr H. A. L. Fisher, who represents Great Britain at the Assembly, the nations are spending 20 per cent, of their resources on preparations to destroy each ether. The burden of armaments on top of the Great Y/ar’s legacy is crushing the life out of some nations, and the present pace in expenditure cannot be maintained. The immediately practical question is not whether the nations will endorse disarmament;—it is a choice between disarmament or, in'Mr Fisher’s weighty words, “slow but sure and steady suicide.”