Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1936. DISARMAMENT EFFORTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19138, 6 October 1936, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1936. DISARMAMENT EFFORTS

There is am unusual piquancy in the fact that the League of Nations, act ing on French initiative, has decided to resume negotiations for inter national disarmament just at a time when all the leading Powers of the world are. using their maximum efforts .to increase their military efficiency The position of the world was elo qucutly summarised by Sir Samuel Hoare in his address last week to the annual conference of the Conservative Party. Germany, he said, was spend ing at the rate of £800,000,000 a veai —equal to the tot it l of the British Budget—on military preparations: Prance, following last year’s activities, had now decided to spend an additional £180,000,000 in expanding her forces; Soviet Russia is arming with the express object of achieving supremacy over all her neighbours; Japan is spending nearly half the total Budget on the army and the navy; Great Britain is striving to make, up some of her lost ground; and even in the United States there hasbeen a steadily rising expenditure or armaments. In. these circumstances, it might seem to be rather absurd foi the League to again start and talk about disarmament, but the very fact that the armaments race has now reached such serious proportions is the strongest possible argument in favour of some action being taken in an attempt to check it. Paradoxical though it may seem, the prospects of success are probably better to-day than they have been for some years, for most of the reasons that can be advanced in justification of rearmament apply with equal, and even added, force to (lie need for disarmament.

The building up of a vast military machine by any one nation can be (successful only so long as othei Powers do not take steps to counteract* its effectiveness; if all nations increase their relative strengths in proportion, none will gain any advantage. Conversely, if all make proportionate reductions, none will be placed at a disadvantage. The existing disequilibrium has been brought about through the conflicting policies of different countries. During the regime of the Labour Government in Britain an attempt was made to encourage disarmament by the example of unilateral action, but no other policy has been, proved to be such a dismal failure. The very fact; of Britain’s weakness was the greatest possible incentive to Germany’s plans

for rearmament, and she has spared no effort (9 capitalise the unprecedented opportunity that was presented to her. Obviously, unilateral disarmament lias no force as an example and experience has shown that it is a factor making for war rather than for peace. During the Abyssinian crisis, British Labour, whose policy denounces war in any circumstances, insisted that Great Britain should press the League of Nations evert to the point ot wat against Italy, hut it was the policy of Labour when in otlice that, made it impossible for Britain to take the stand that, was demanded of her. British weakness enabled Italy to carry out her designs in Abyssinia, and continued British weakness would make it possible for Germany, or any other Power, to carry out whatever designs it might have on the territory of another people.

To-day, the policy of Great Britain has boon radically changed. No longer is there vacillation and indecision. but, in their place, a fixed determination to carry through a programme of rearmament with the least possible delay. It is significant of the state of public opinion in Great Britain that even the Labour Party has decided to give Us support to the policy of the Government. This means that whatever party might hold office, Britain will not again be role•mtod to a position of military in Priority, and the possible influence of this knowledge on would-be belli-

gerents cannot lie over-estimated If. as Sir Samuel IToare stated, the supposed weakness of the British Km pi re was proved by bitter experience ,o bn a disturbing factor in the field of international politics, is it to< much t.o expect, that, a strong, united and determined Empire will provide that stabilising influence which for sc long has been sought in vain? Tin rearming of Britain must mean the relative weakening of other Power; nnd the dissipating of any hopes ot expansion which might hate been cherished. If this point of reasoning is reached, it. means that nothing can bo gained bv continuing the race for armaments, and.it is not a fat step to realisation of the fact that the obvious course is to reach soim agreement for disarmament and thu. save some of the expenditure that at present is being directed to the piling up of weapons of warfare. it nthought of this possibility that encourages a belief that, even in the midst of unprecedented rearmament there is a growing hope for disarmament.. With no great Power infcrioi in armed strength, with none having nnv prospect of achieving superiority competition becomes a mere futi lity and a. general scaling down to a reasonable level commends itsclt a: ordinary common sense. Even though common sense may not appear to In the dominating characteristic of in tcrnational relations, nothing can In lost by a further exchange of opinini on the problem of disarmament, am much, indeed, may be gained.