The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1932. DISARMAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 21853, 2 November 1932, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1932. DISARMAMENT

While M. Herriot’s proposal do eliminate all standing armies and permit only militias for defensive purposes has an excellent sound, a strong disarmament journal like the Manchester Guardian has put its finger on the fatal weakness of the scheme: the fact that it would mean conscript armies in disguise, and promote Germany to the rank of the greatest military Power in Europe. Associated with this idea is the plan for an international force to deal with aggression, an idea that France has advanced several times as the logical addition to any -disarmament scheme. The French know that the international force plan will not be accepted, and there is a suspicion that this proposal is presented because it is known to be unacceptable. While it is part of the militia plan, that plan may be regarded as dead. At the same time

Italy has been talking complete disarmament, which is also unattainable at the present moment. Britain makes practical proposals for the abolition of what are regarded as weapons of offensive warfare, and the Americans take a similar line, with a plan which would enlarge the superiority of the American forces over the Japanese. The abolition of tanks, gas, certain classes of aeroplanes and submarines is involved in the effort to cut out weapons of an offensive character, but if it be assumed that these weapons can be eliminated, the weapons which remain, now considered defensive, will become effective as weapons of offensive warfare, and the position returns to its original difficulties. Disarmament in any form can be effective as a visible expression of confidence, but it is international confidence which will prevent wars, not the abolition of certain classes of arms. Unless the root causes of war are dealt with the disarmament question will continue to be the subject of perpetual conferences in which the Powers talk without losing sight of their individual requirements. Pacts which condemn the agressor are useful as expressions of high moral purpose, but there will always remain the problem of determining who is the agressor. The nation which makes the first warlike move may not be the aggressor. There is such a thing as provocation and in deciding which nation fired the first gun intricate evidence must be weighed. One idea put forward is that steps be taken to ensure that the victor in any war shall not obtain any advantage in territory or in trade, and that no country be permitted to assist another in war by any process other than gift. This would debar the sale of goods to a belligerant or the advance of money. Probably that is no more practical than the elimination of gas warfare, but if wars were robbed of all shadow of gain there would be no inducement to use the arbitrament of arms for the settlement of international disputes. It is the root causes of war that require attention, for when they are eliminated there will be no need for conferences for the discussion of disarmament. The League of Nations does tackle this aspect of the problem, and so if the Disarmament Conferences lose themselves in a maze of conflicting plans and pious platitudes, the work of making wars difficult goes on, and the cause of disarmament is advanced. That is the most reassuring element in present-day conditions.