RIVAL DEMANDS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22213, 16 March 1934, Page 9

RIVAL DEMANDS

EQUALITY AND SECURITY THE DISARMAMENT PROBLEM HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE (British. Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.; RUGBY, March 14. Disarmament prospects were reviewed by Captain Eden during a debate in the House of Commons. He remarked that in the difficult months of the conference one of the most encouraging features had been the close collaboration between Britain and the United States. Only a few days ago President Roosevelt had issued a statement giving full support to the fresh initiative set forth in the British memorandum.

Captain Eden reminded the House that the long delay of the conference was not owing to disagreement among the experts. but rather that the nations had been unable to summon that confidence in one another which was necessary if a convention was to be realised and kept. As an inevitable legacy of the war they had been conscious of the presence in Europe of two overmastering motives—on one side mistrustful apprehension and on the other aggravated impatience. The rival demands for security on one side and for equality on the other wer-3 only the vocal expressions of these sentiments. The anxiety of France was for security—a demand based in every French mind upon deep and abiding memories. Just ns France had this instinctive desire, it seemed perhaps difficult for her to appreciate that it was possible that Germany might -have the same feeling, expressed in another form. France was so convinced that she had no intention of attacking any one that she found it difficult to believe that another country, not at present permitted comparable armaments, should not feel absolutely secure in her vicinity. France joined with Britain in regard,lng the League as an outward symbol of a collective peace system, and it was difficult for France to believe that a great Power in Western Europe could remain long away from Geneva. Sometimes speeches were made that added to her fears. There was one in the last few, days' by General Gearing. If there was a lack of instinctive trust between the nations and of confidence deep and abiding it sometimes happened that comments of. small importance had a greater significance. If these were the respective positions, not of the Governments, but of the sentiments of the nations for some years past, it was clear that they could not be readily reconciled. How was it to be done, and could it be done at all? When he asked himself was it his experience on his brief mission to Europe that this was a hopeless task the answer be gave was No; decidedly no.” > . ,' Until all the replies were received on the British memorandum it was premature to be pessimistic. Britain s stake in peace was probably the greatest in the world, and her stake in the League was also great. If the Disarmament Conference failed she would have as much cause for anxiety as any other nation, and all other countries would no donbt have to review their armaments, but he did not believe that even a manifold increase in her existing armaments would alone be sufficient to ensure Britain’s national security. Com-petitive-armaments in themselves were no security. “We had them m 1914, and they, availed us nothing in preventing war. By standing on our . security , m VrtAamcnts wc could not flatter ourselves that we should then have, realised the luxury, of isolation. But, anxious as tb? •situation is, I do not believe it to bo desperate.” . ... , « Captain Eden continued: Somethin,, was surely to be , gained from the fact that public opinion among the nations was to-day alive to the seriousness and anxiety of the situation. That was not the case in 1914. He did not, therefore, accept the judgment of those who spoke as though war in Europe were imminent. But they had an urgent responsibility to get on with the work, for every month made the task more difficult. That task was twofold. Ihe first thing was to realise that the convention was not a spectacular convention—that was beyond our reach—but a convention containing some disarmament based on the realisation of the present position —in short, a convention on the basis of the recent British memorandum. The second was to seek to restore to the League that nil authority it could only enjoy from the membership of all the great Powers of Western Europe. Every development of science and policy since the war had increased the need for, some such organisation as the League, and the widest possible membership had now become an indispensable element of international policy. What he had learnt in the three capitals had convinced him that there was no alternative to the general lines of the British memorandum, if an agreement was to be reached on the disarmament convention at all. The Government would examine the replies of the three nations with sympathy and understanding, and with the construction that no nation would willingly allow a final breakdown of the conference. The debate is proceeding.

REVIVAL OF WAR TALK.

LONDON, March 14

In the House of Commons Mr Morgan Jones (Labour), moving the rejection of the Foreign Office vote, attributed the recent revival of war talk in Europe to the British Government’s hesitant leadership. He said that Herr Hitler had come into power largely owing to the League’s failure. Britain had failed to respond to the proposals of the United States and Italy, and had also failed to take advantage of the French Left Wing Government’s search for security through the League, leading Germany to favour breaking the chains of Versailles. MR CHURCHILL’S VIEWS. LONDON, March 14. (Received March 15. at 10 p.m.) . Mr Winston Churchill said: “It is impossible to expect France to reduce her army to the strength of Poland, Germany, and* Italy, particularly in times-like the present. We are deluding ourselves if we imagine that because ■we have increased our air force France will consent to reduce hers. The Disarmament Conference brought us nearer to a pronounced state of European illwill than anything else, and only resulted in rearmament by Germany.” Colonel J. C. Wedgwood (Lab.) said that Captain Eden’s speech was out of date. Rearmament by Germany had completely changed the situation. Continental Powers did not know Britain’s policy. Locarno gave security on one frontier, and its extension was vitally necessary. Sir Herbert Samuel (Lib.) drew attention to the cost of armaments, which precluded all hope of reductions in taxation or improved social conditions. The revival of German militarism was a tragedy in which all of us might be doomed to take a lamentable part. Major C. R. Attlee (Lab.) said Labour believed in pooled security under

the League, but this was unobtainable unless members felt that obligations would be fulfilled. Sir John Simon, replying, said that opponents of disarmament must face the alternative that' if disarmament efforts break down there will be a scramble in unchecked worldwide rearmament. It would be a hundred times better to have "a bad agreement than none at all, Mr Morgan Jones’s amendment was negatived without a division, and the Foreign Office vote was carried.