The Daily News WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1932. TOWARDS DISARMAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 April 1932, Page 6

The Daily News WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1932. TOWARDS DISARMAMENT.

The Disarmament Conference at Geneva has taken its most important step in carrying Sir John Simon’s proposal providing that “the possession or use of certain types of armaments should be prohibited to any State, or be internationalised through an international convention.” The reference to the internationalisation of certain types of armaments was necessitated by the proposals originally put forward by France, which were in effect that the League of Nations should create and direct an armed force as a means of imposing peace. The brief reports of the work of . the conference show that the first idea of the British Foreign Minister was to prohibit certain instruments of war, and 16 countries were willing to support him. Then M. Titulesco, Rumania’s principal representative, found 14 countries to endorse a counter-proposal, namely, that while favouring, the principle of qualitative reductions of aggressive armaments, the conference should discuss the question whether these armaments should be. abolished or placed at the service of the League. This was not sufficiently precise for Britain, which desires to establish the principle that individual nations shall not maintain nor employ certain instruments, but by adopting the theory of internationalisation Sir John Simon sought to make his point. He was successful, and at the same time he appears to have satisfied the representatives of France. The result is that the conference has approved of the principle of qualitative disarmament, which is the most hopeful sign that has been given since the delegates gathered at Geneva. If Britain’s proposal is carried out all land, sea and air armaments will be examined “with a view to selecting those weapons whose character is most specifically offensive and threatening to civilians, or most efficacious against national defence.” It will not be a question of each nation’s agreement to limit its maintenance of submarines, certain kinds of aeroplanes, and so on in accordance with an international table of some kind; the enthusiastic acceptance of Sir John Simon’s proposal means that there is now every reason to. suppose that certain weapons will be banished from the armouries of the nations. Whether the conference will find it wise to internationalise these particular weapons under the control of the League is another matter altogether. If such a decision should be made the League will have difficulty in implementing it, and it may be that the conference will now consider seriously whether arms which the nations themselves feel it wise to prohibit should be contemplated as part of the equipment of international police. The removal of this subject from the field of national prejudices into that of international politics should help to convince the nations that the moral aspect of the issue is important, even if the practical difficulties are not insuperable. These obviously are considerable. It is in Europe that the advocacy of an international police force under the League is strongest, but the European representatives perhaps have not taken a very wide view of the problems involved. The Covenant of the League certainly contemplates the creation and direction of an armed force to keep the peace, yet the peace-mak-ers who founded the League can scarcely have visualised the magnitude of such an undertaking. If the League had had a force at its command could it have handled the Sino-Japanese trouble any better than it has done? If an international force had its headquarters in Europe its transport to the Far East would be a tremendous business. Yet a scheme providing for the permanent maintenance of sections of an international force in various parts of the world would break down under its own weight. What would be the value of an international navy to the British Empire? It might be a fine thing for Europe, but it might be quite incapable of guaranteeing the security Britain’s great overseas Dominions. If the whole world were dependent upon the international establishment for its ultimate safety a good many of the nations probably would complain that they were not adequately served. These are points which surely must occur to the delegates gathered at Geneva when they settle down to consideration of the questions raised by Sir John Simon’s resolution. Theoretically, of course, no such difficulties, should arise. If the nations represented at Geneva are actuated by a sincere desire to establish lasting peace- in the world they will eventually come to the conclusion that the only force which the League really requires is that of moral suasion. It would be encouraging to be able to believe that their thoughts are tending in that direction as the result of the latest decision of the conference. At any rate every lover of peace may hope that in their enthusiastic approval of the abolition of some of the worst features of national armaments the delegates have given an earnest of their intention to perfect a practical scheme of disarmament before they leave Geneva.

GREAT BRITAIN’S TARIFF. It is not surprising that the tariff proposals of Great Britain have failed to satisfy all sections of the commercial community. They are the first to be framed upon recommendations of the expert board that has been set up for the purpose of formulating tariffs. The tariffs imposed during the financial year which, closed last month were admittedly emergency measures. They were politically conceived and their first duty was to check the enormous influx of imports, which, was preventing trade recovery in the United Kingdom, and to introduce the principle of preference to Empire products. The method adopted was admittedly tentative. On the whole it has proved efficient, but the Government when introducing it made it clear that in future tariff proposals would be left to expert advisers, and the Tariff Board has been appointed. Its duty is to see how the stimulating of Home manufacture and the principle of Empire preference can be developed without undue interference with the foreign trade which is of such stupendous importance to the commercial wellbeing of Great Britain. Pending the Ottawa Conference the preference granted to certain Dominion and colonial products remains, but how far that can develop must be left to the conference to demonstrate. The Tariff Board was faced with another important duty in framing its recommendations. The duties on foreign goods are expected to provide a large part of the national income, and to bring this about and still leave Home industries with a larger share of the Home markets is no easy undertaking. One of the alterations made is in regard to woollen goods. The new tariff is just half the one that was first applied, and the British woollen industry fears that the protection now offered will be insufficient to prevent foreign goods from swamping the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that this should be the view of an industry of such vital importance to woolgrowers in New Zealand and Australia. It is an indication of the imperative need for well equipped representation of the Dominion at the Ottawa Conference. The new tariff shows also that with all possible goodwill towards Empire trading the value of Great Britain's foreign trade can never be overlooked by her statesmen. How these two trading principles can be accommodated is for the conference to show.