The Daily News MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1932. A TURNING POINT.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 November 1932, Page 6

The Daily News

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1932. A TURNING POINT.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH, Currie Street. STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA, High Street.

For good or ill it appears certain that events at Geneva within the next few days or weeks will be fraught with grave portent for civilisation. If the British Foreign Minister, Sir John Simon, is to be believed, a turning point in the efforts towards international disarmament has been reached. It is satisfactory that an authority so qualified should express an opinion that at least gives hope. Probably few of the delegates at the meeting of the Disarmament Bureau of the League of Nations, which is now meeting at Geneva, know so well as the British Ministers the difficulties and the disappointments that have beset the path of those who would abolish militarism from the ordering of the nations. The establishment of the League of Nations, the Locarno agreements, the Kellogg Pact, these are incidents it was hoped would stand as milestones on the road to universal peace. Instead they have seemed at times but pebbles on the shpre over which the tide ebbs and flows, leaving them sometimes in evidence and sometimes submerged by waves of distrust, fear, or national pride. Because of these experiences it is easy to be doubtful whether any good can come from the present meeting of the nations and to feel that, like its predecessors, it will end in high sounding phrases committed to signature but of little apparent value. Nevertheless, the fact that Sir John Simon could suggest that

the way towards disarmament was still open is not without significance and the present conference has at least three definite plans for reducing armaments submitted by Great Powers for its consideration. Great Britain, the United States and France have each submitted a programme which is thought practicable and definite, though the suggestions differ in many important aspects. As a counter-balance to the advantages the present conference possesses there is the grave disadvantage that Germany is holding aloof from the discussions. She has. declared her intention of doing so until her claim to equality with other Great Powers in the provision of armaments has been formally admitted. It is obvious that international agreement is impossible unless it is shared by Germany, and Great Britain has addressed herself to the task of making it easy for Germany to recede from the position she has taken and to share in the discussions at Geneva. Great Britain suggests that Germany’s claim be admitted, but by a reduction of armaments in other countries instead of an increase in armaments in Germany. To this end Great Britain has made certain definite proposals. They include the immediate drastic curtailment of air forces with a view to their ultimate complete elimination, the limitation of artillery for land and naval forces and for the latter a reduction in the size of warships and the abolition of submarines. To some extent the proposals of Great Britain are on parallel lines to those of the United States which, before she made her own, were accepted by Great Britain as suggestions which were worth exploration by the Disarmament Bureau. The French proposals are towards limitation of air forces and of artillery. They do not include the abolition of the submarine though an open mind upon the size and equipment of warships is indicated. But France suggests as a principle of the reduction of forces in individual States that an international army be created to be under the command of the League and to be used as a kind of police force should any State show signs of breaking the international agreement to keep the peace. Italy has not yet expressed an opinion regarding the three latest disarmament plans, nor has Japan, the country in which the authority of the League seems likely to be tested. Never Jias the need for disarmament been more plainly demonstrated. Starting from the plain foundation of _ national solvency it is doubtful if the nations of Europe could stand the financial strain of uncontrolled competition in armaments which is the only practical alternative to general disarmament. Even those whose resources are ample will suffer by the. effects of armament expenditure by poorer States, for if there is one truism, that has been driven home in the last few years it is that a nation cannot live unto itself alone. But if civilisation and liberty were worth, the cost of the Great War to maintain, the demand for disarmament rests upon higher claims than those of the pocket. Insofar as their influence prevails will the success or failure of the negotiations be determined.