THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 1925. CHEMICAL WARFARE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19505, 13 June 1925, Page 10

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JUNE 13, 1925. CHEMICAL WARFARE.

The international conference which for some weeks past has been considering at Geneva proposals for the regulation of the traffic in arms and munitions has been prompted by the American representative, Mr Burton, to take measures for the drafting of a protocol designed to bring about the abolition of chemical and bacteriological warfare. Apparently Mr Burton informed the_ conference that he had the authority of the President of the United States for stating that if it declined to move in this matter the initiative would be taken by the United States, and that invitations would be issued for a conference at Washington. It is a humanitarian task to which the delegates at Geneva are committed, but it presents difficulties even greater than are likely to occur to the layman. There is no peculiar

sanctity or blessedness about a protocol. Not all the agreements evolved at Geneva will stand the hard test of practical experience. To secure the abolition of the use of certain weapons in warfare while the abolition of warfare itself is still unsecured means an attempt to eliminate the lesser evil which is comprehended in the greater. One© a war breaks out, the nations engaged in it do not courteously consult one another about the armaments that should be employed. They hope to secure advantage over an adversary by the use of superior weapons. And history has shown that agreements drawn up and signed in time of peace are not invariably honoured in time of war. The discoveries that are made in the laboratories of the nations are not broadcasted for the information of the world at large. The development of tho weapons rendered available through the labours of the chemists represents one aspect only of the competition in ments. The price of security is becoming increasingly uncertain. If the nations can agree among themselves that chemical warfare must be abolished, well and good, A great deal may be gained by that, and nothing will be lost. But neither protocol nor any other instrument can be creative of perfect mutual confidence. The argument that chemical warfare is a reproach to the civilisation that has evolved it may seem unanswerable, but, for all that, it is not generally accepted. A defence of chemical warfare is contained in a little book embodying a recent lecture by Mr J. B. S. Haldane, Reader in Biochemistry at Cambridge. The author entirely disputes the suggestion that a gas bombardment is more cruel than one with normal artillery projectiles. At least, it will be agreed that both are abominable. The fact that chemical warfare was in conflict with the rules laid down .at the Hague, in an international declaration to which Germany was a signatory, did not prevent her from practising it against the Allies, and thereby compelling them, after suffering considerable disadvantages, to follow her example, and beat her at her own game. “ In a pamphlet emanating*recently from the leader of the Left Wing of tho Socialist Party in the Reichstag it was asserted that disarmed Germany was competing in an armament race with France, and that the coming war would be fought, not by men, but by secret gases and inventions in which respect Germany was not lacking. Some comment by the late Lieut.-Colonel Repington on Mr Haldane’s volume is interesting and to the point:—“We have been deceived once and cannot afford to be deceived a second time. We must be ready for chemical warfare, and not allow the Germans to catch ns napping again. •We should know exactly what the Germans are doing in this matter, and whether they are up to their old games again. If we have proofs that they are, these proofs must be given, and then no one can expect us to adhere to Hague or Washington rules so far as the culprits are concerned. But that we should begin this game before an epeniy drives us to it would be a measure to which our people could not assent.” Great- Britain’s scientists did yeoman service in helping her through the crisis that developed during tfao great war. Lessons taught by such experience are not quickly forgotten. If a protocol framed at Geneva could bring about the abolition of chemical warfare the achievement would be a notable one. But only a war could test the situation. The fact that there is a connection between aerial warfare and chemical warfare is not to be disregarded, and it is well to remember that Russia is not a party to the international deliberations at Geneva. But Russia as a possible enemy is not to be. overlooked. Sensational accounts have been published of what is going on in Russia in pursuance, it is averred, of the belief that aviation is the modern technical instrument of universal revolution. The creation of a vast All-Red aerial fleet is the subject of warnings brought back from Russia by competent observers. The Red General Staff is credited with Doing at work on “a secret gas-war ■scheme,” lurid details of which are supplied in the Daily Mail. “Experts report that Russian chemical workers boast that they have the secret of a new poison-gas to use in the next , war which will have a power and terror hardly dreamed of hitherto.” It is difficult to judge how much should be allowed for imaginative flights in this connection. In the meantime, however, the Powers, thinking in terms of security, will probably prefer, openly or otherwise, to retain “chemical warfare services” as part of their military organisations.