WORLD DISARMAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20704, 30 April 1929, Page 11

WORLD DISARMAMENT

FOREIGN SECRETARY’S VIEW. OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME. ; “ STILL A LONG WAY TO GO.” (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegrtph—Copyright.) RUGBY, April 28. Sir Austen Chamberlain (Foreign Secretary), in a speech at Wakefield, delivered a pronouncement regarding what he described as . the notable declaration made by Mr H. Gibson, American delegate at the Preparatory Conference on Disarmament at Geneva. He said that Mr Gibson’s declaration was notable in many ways. “It has, I think, paved the way for a veal ad van e in that movement towards disarmament which all the world desires and needs; but it has a special interest for us, because it shows once again how close in these matters are the policies of the United States and Great Britain and how similar is our outlook and our viewpoint. Mr Gibson dwelt on the importance which the signature of the Kellogg, Pact had for the problem of disarmament. I agree with him. It is something like four years ago that, speaking in the Assembly at Geneva, I said that moral disarmament was a preliminary to the physical disarmament of the nations. Mr Gibson, expressing the opinion of his Government and of President Hoover, dwells upon the new outlook which we ought to bring to these matters in the light of the solemn engagements which we have taken not to have recourse to war as an instrument of policy. But our agreement does not stop there. Mr Gibson defines the purpose and object of the United States as being to secure in the naval field not merely limitation of armaments, but a reduction of armaments and a reduction which shall not be applied to this or that class only, but shall be applied to every class of vessel. I, in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister outside in the country, have already expressed our full adherence to and our acceptance of this policy so declared by the United States, because between that country and us there is no difference of purpose and no difference of principle. We, too, desire not merely limitation, hut a reduction of armaments. We, too, desire not merely a partial reduction applied to certain classes of warships, but a reduction applied throughout the whole field of naval construction, and as between them and ua I do not hesitate to declare my profound conviction that at no time would an arrangement have been difficult, for between them and us war is a contingency that no sane or responsible man will contemplate as a possibility. If we had had to consider only their needs and ours long ago we would have made a Gentlemen’s Agreement expressive of the confidence that we have in one another and of the confidence that we have that each of us signed these international undertakings in good faith and with the resolve to keep them in spirit as well as in letter. We could have said to them; ‘Trusting to you that you build what is required for your needs, we will build only what is required for the necessities of our defences, and in considering our defences we do not have to consider the naval forces of the United States.’ “What was the problem?” asked Sir Austen. “I stated in last February, in words which I venture to repeat to-day, that it was not whether the United States Navy would be equal to our own. as we had accepted fully and with intention parity , with the United States. It was not that America wanted reduction and we did not. We desired a reduction as earnestly as she did. . As I said in February, the problem is to find .some equation by which we can measure naval strengths, so that parity, which both nations desire, may be reached, and reached at a level which indicates not any increase in the armaments of the world, but a reduction, and the significance, importance and hopefulness of the statement which Mr Gibson made the other day is that by suggesting a new criteria of comparison he has made it easier to find a standard by which reduction may be fixed, whilst taking account of the different circumstances and different needs of the Powers which are concerned. But, Mr Gibson made a second—and in its way an equally remarkable—contribution to this problem. Only yesterday he turned from naval armaments to land armaments. Again observe how similar the standpoint and Outlook of the United States are to that of our own country. Mr Gibson said, speaking on the question of trained reserves, that the Government of the United States would have desired that those trained reserves should be included in any scheme for limitation and reduction, but, recognising that the United States, which, like this country, maintains but a very small army—scarcely more than a police force—equivalent +6 the duties which it has to discharge, and realising that countries so situated could not dictate to the great military nations of the Continent with their different systems and different traditions, Mr Gibson said that, while that was the desire of the United States, it would not insist upon it, in deference to the feelings and traditions' of other countries, in the ‘rape that,, by yielding Us view, those other countries would be led lo make a great step forward in the direction in which they all desire to move. I call your attention to that, because only last summer his Majesty’s Government, ai „our humble servant, were victims, or the objects at any rate, of an unmeasured denunciation by both the other parties in the State, because we had said and done exactly what Mr Gibson said and aid yesterday at Geneva, We were told we had made disarmament impose sible. We were told that, worse than that, we had definitely separated ourselves from the United States, and created a real divergence botv ecu their policy and ours. Now we see that, moved by the same desire to make progress, to find lines upon which progress may be made, Mr Gibson makes a' declaration at Geneva for which we were denounced when we made it a year ago.: “I do not wish to pretend that ail the difficulties arc over. We have still a long way to go. ■ We have many obstacles to overcome, but I hold the American action at Geneva in these last days as a hopeful sign of ultimate success, and as having made the most valuable contribution to the cause of disarmament and peace.” ARTICLE BY MR GOOLIDGE. ' THE QUESTION OF PARITY. ' NEW YORK, April 28 (Received April 29, at 9 p.m.) Ex-president Coolidge, in an artiole in the Ladies’ Horae Journal, discusses “ The Promotion of Peace Through the Limitation of Armaments,” during the course of which lie says; “ Men will not long “recognise the sword as the major source of authority. The time has gome when any one nation is likely to he able to control the sea. To set’up (Jut claim would only cause friction and to pursue it would only be a delusion. The question of parity partakes of 'he same nature. So much depends upon the nieh behind the guns and the courage and I skill with which they are cum minuted that a seeming paper parity could never Ibe decisive. Our commerce and com mi tI ments abroad are so large' that tliley 1 need a navy for their protection witli-

out much reference to the size of the navies of other countries. The hope of gaining absolute security through armaments is another delusion. More security will be found in a moderate force which menaces nobody than in a great force menacing everybody. If the world wishes to be relieved of taxes it will insist on a summary limitation of the present scale of armaments. Peace will never be made permanent by fear alone; it must have its main foundation in justice and goodwill strong enough to satisfy reason and the conscience of humanity.*’—Australian Press Association.