The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932. GENEVA’S YARDSTICKS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19300, 29 September 1932, Page 8

The Timaru Herald THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1932. GENEVA’S YARDSTICKS.

For some considerable time it lias become painfully obvious that other countries have no great desire to follow the example Great Britain has set them in the limitation of armaments. The draft resolutions and the conventions that have been accepted from time to time at Geneva represent a pretty thin crop for all the talk and expenditure on disarmament conferences. Three months ago, Sir Herbert Samuel pointed out that between 1925 and 1932, British expenditure on armaments had been reduced by 20 per cent. All the world knows that in that period the expenditure of other Powers, with one or two unimportant exceptions, has been increased. No doubt the delegates attending periodical conferences at great expense to the countries they represent, are not unmindful of the enormity of the responsibility thrown upon them, but world opinion is not

likely to be very much impressed ( by the spectacle of an inter- , national disarmament conference ; still arguing about the suppression of chemical warfare which was supposed to have been banned by the Geneva Convention of 1925. It is not surprising, therefore, that critical observers are beginning to wonder if such discussions at Geneva are to continue indefinitely at extravagant cost. Taking up this cue, The Daily Mail said: As the people Of this country are at present taxed almost to death, in simple justice to. them a limit of time and expenditure should be imposed on the Geneva Conference. It is no fault of Britain if the other Powers,will not disarm as she has done. Unhappily it has become the custom of spokesmen of European Powers to indulge in reckless comment on the occasion of the gathering of international statesmen at Geneva that fills the atmosphere with the elements of ■ an explosion. The French Prime Minister knowing the reasons for

Germany’s absence from the Conference, although claiming that “France, had given proofs of constructive paeifiism,” proceeded with the utmost disregard for the vital importance of generating good will among the nations, to hurl fiery insults at Germany. “We are glad,” he said, “that France is not the only country to emphasise that German rearmament would be a prelude to a return of the world’s former follies.” Moreover, the French Prime Minister charged Germany with seeking to organise a powerful modern army designed for aggression.” Contemporaneously with this outburst, the German representative at Geneva declared that it would be useless for Germany to participate in the disarmament negotiations if the results would not apply equally to all Powers. “It is not a question of Germany wanting to arm,” declares Baron von Neurath, “but the refusal of other

Powers to disarm.” The world knows very little of what Germany is doing, but only the blindest of blind observers could fail to discern the intentions of the great Powers of Europe who with disarmament talk on their tongues, are employed in making such gigantic and effective preparations for war that are becoming a postive menace to the peace of the world. No one will believe for a moment that France lias made any attempt to honour the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which lays down the principle of progressive disarmament. At the outset, the objective of Geneva was supposed to be, as it was at Lausanne, “to create a new order.” This new order was to be achieved by the completion of the system of the Covenant and the Briand-Kellogg Pact, for the preservation of peace through a general and drastic reduction of the instruments of war. President Hoover

put forward this principle of the new order as created by the Briand-Kellogg Pact in the very forefront of his proposals which involved bold reductions in all three arms now, while making no provision for their replacement ill tlhe future, even in a modified form. All disarmament proposals are framed with a view to the dangers not only to countries “highly organised for defence,” but for those also who do not desire to be so organised, but whose land and whose people are just as dear to them. This is the attitude the Conference at Geneva must adopt. It is futile, if not dangerous for heavily-armed France to address curtain lectures to Germany, who demands, in effect, that all the signatories to the Peace Treaty shall honour the obligations laid upon them, to embark upon a progressive policy of disarmament. Obviously, the leaders of the German people are not blind to the fruits gathered by Japan by the Nipponese reliance upon the sword, at the expense of China who put her trust in the sacred obligations of treaties and the status of the League of

JNatlOnS. JiiUl t-UVLi j I'BL ULIIIL UoL attitude of the French Prime Minister, at the mere mention of arms equality for Germany, has so surcharged the international atmosphere with hostility and distrust that the German newspapers have seized the opportunity to declare that “it is now

clear to the whole world that France has no intention either of disarming or even of considering Germany’s claim for equality.” Germany’s claim for arms equality may be a negation of treaty understandings, but the refusal of France and other Powers to agree to substantial reductions in armaments is a gross violation of flie letter and spirit of all the 1 tacts and treaties that have been ■signed since the War.

CLEARING THE AIR. An informative and timely explanation by the Minister-in-Charge of the Pensions Department, ought to clear up a misunderstanding which brought Ihe Member for Thames into the limelight and furnished the fuel for the generation of quite a little heat in political circles. No one who knows anything of the perils associated with work in the mines would consent to an undue burden being placed on the shoulders of the widows of victims of accident and disease associated with the everyday occupation of the miner. The Member for Thames, who represents a constituency in which extensive mining operations are carried on, felt himself constrained to make a powerful

appeal in the interests of the widows of miners. Within a few days the protests of Mr Samuel were fanned into flames by rather over-zealous commentators, who hinted at disruption in the Coalition camp, unless the Member for Thames could lie silenced or appeased. The Ministerial statement lias cleared up certain misunderstandings, and some rather arresting information has been made public. Whether or not Mr Coates promised to have the whole question of pensions for miners’ widows reviewed at an early date does not matter very much in view of the Minister’s statement, for the promise now given, that it is the intention of the Government to bring in such legislation as is necessary to deal with the pensions of miners’ widows has com-

pletely cleared the air, and the political interests that would welcome the early downfall of the Coalition Administration must find some other stick with which to belabour the Government. It

ought to be possible for the rank and file of the Coalition to “agree to differ” on minor aspects of the Government’s policy without any suggesting being made that Members who cannot see eye to eye with everything the Government does, should sever their allegiance with the Administration in office. The Coalition appealed to the country for a blank cheque which was readily given, but it would be imposing too great a strain on the loyalty of Members to expect of them blind and unquestioning support of every item in the Government’s

policy. Generally speaking, the Members of Parliament supporting the Coalition are reasonable citizens, and if, as in the case of the Member for Thames, they feel impelled by special circumstances wholly connected with their particular electorates, to make

nergetic representations to the

Government, their views and even their opposition ought to be accepted in good faith, and no vote, other than that given on a no-confidence motion, ought to be regarded as imperilling the existence of the Government. It must be obvious that under the arrangement which brought the Coalition into existence, it ought

to be possible to allow for a good deal of give and take without any question of disloyalty to rather indefinite election pledges being raised.

THE MINISTER AND THE WHEAT-GROWER,

No- effort should be spared in thoroughly organising a monster meeting of wheat growers and allied industries, to meet the Minister of Agriculture on the occasion of his promised visit to Timaru in response to the invitation extended to him by the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. Experience has demonstrated the value of affording opponents of the wheat industry a close up view of the scope of the work of the men on the land associated with this key industry. The Minister’s public pronouncements would appear to suggest (hat, he opposes the sliding scale of duties, but since the protection of wheat growing is an accepted policy measure of the present Government, the Minister’s personal views are not likely to be put into legislative effect. The Wheat Marketing Agency has pointed out for the edification of noisy people of the North Island that all European countries today, with the exceptions of Denmark and the Irish Free State, are protecting their wheat-grow-gin industry, and in some cases to a quite marked degree. Even Great Britain has considered it advisable and necessary to protect its wheatgrowers, and a scheme is now in operation whereby the wheat-grower is guaranteed 5s per bushel. Under the sliding scale of duties here the grower in New Zealand obtained for his wheat this year 4s 3d to 4s 5d per bushel. He is therefore in not nearly such a fortunate position as the English farmer. In Australia this year a bounty of 4|d a bushel is paid to the wheatgrower, and this has already meant the distribution of £3,300,000 to the end of June last.

The 1932 Year Book gives the number of wheatgrowers in the Dominion as 6290, and- it is admitted that the wheat and flour industry gives employment to a very large number of other people. The capital invested in the industry was reported in 1929 to be almost £13,000,000. Doubtless all this information is in possession of the Minister. What is required, however, is a monster demonstration of wheat growers and all whose daily avocations are bound up in the industry, which will not only show the Minister that the man on the land is really in earnest, but that every section of the community supports his claim for adequate protection.