DISARMAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 139, 15 June 1931, Page 3

DISARMAMENT

SITUATION SURVEYED “THE PROSPECT IS NOT HOPEFUL.” MR HUGH JENKINS ADDRESSES BRUNSWICK EARMERS “Forces are working in two directions in the world to-day. Europe is in a state of suppressed agitation, the British Empire is the greatest factor in world policy, New Zealand shares that responsibility hy reason of her membership of the British Empire and of the League of Nations,” declared Mr Hugh C. Jenkins at Brunswick on Saturday night, when addressing a meeting convened by the Farmers’ Union. Ml T. Currie, provincial president of the Farmers’ Union, was in the chair.

I make no apology for addressing a farming community upon such a sub jeer, as the “League of Nations,” and the problem of “Disarmament,” said Air Jenkins. You are engaged in international trade. You live by producing produce which will be sold and con sumed in many countries of the world Poverty follows war and poverty in any country of the world affects all countries. Anyone engaged in international trade, therefore, is immediately concerned with the prosperity of the world. There is no country in the world today that is not the poorer because of tho Great War, which ended twelve years ago. The world has become increasingly internationalised and poor buyers make poor sellers. On the very basis of trade alono our own material well-being (remands that we use every effort to preserve the peace of the world. How shall this be done? The Old Paths There arc two piths which the nations of the world may elect to follow. The one path is to follow the old policy of alliances and armaments and the other path is to follow a policy of co-operation and mutual aid. Let us consider the respective merits of these two paths. The path of armaments and alliances has been tried. Germany established a mighty Empire by the power of tho sword. It took Sleswig—Holstein £rom Denmark in tne six weeks’ war. It removed Austria from the head of tho Germanic League by the victory at Sadowa. it robbed France of Alsace-Lorraine by the war of 1870. This great Viking adventure had created for itself an encirclement of enemies. This compelled it to maintain a huge army. It made an ally of Austria and Italy, and thus created an armed camp in the centre of Europe. There is a law of physics which proclaims that “every action has its con sequent reaction, equal iu extent and opposite in direction.” This law is equally true of politics. The natural reaction of France was to seek an alliance with Russia, and this she achieved in the year 1890, and when Ger , many started to compete with Great Britain by building a competitive navy, Britain found herself forced into the opposite camp as allies of France and Russia. Both sides continued to pile up armaments. Europa became an armed camp. War became an inevitable event, and when that terrible event did break in on the world Mr H. C. Wells was able to write with truth: “At last the intolerable suspense is over.” The suspense of war in those pre-war years had become almost unbearable, even the actuality of war itself brought some measure of surcease.

And what was the result of the war: On land, sea aud in the air 12,990,570 soldiers were killed in the great war, more than eight times the population of this Dominion. It cost the combatants fifty thousand millions of pounds sterling, which is set down at half of their total national wealth. That occurred in four years of war. Do we dare to doubt Mr Baldwin’s assertion that another war would mean the destruction of Western Civilisation? But this is not all: There are some vital factors which we cannot assess. Wai is dysgcni‘c. It takes the best elements into the army. The army soon becomes one huge “wangle.” Those with a sense of duty aud a readiness to selfsacrifice had themselves in the positions of danger; they accept them. The others find tho comfortable jobs that even warfare provides. Remarque’s writings do indeed contain objectionable detail, but his latest book, “The Road Back,” and Frey’s “Crossbear ers” reveal in all truth the terrible dysgenic results of war, physically, mentally, morally. It is a good thing that these books are being published to-day, for remember this, that Hit ler’s steel-hat movement iu Germany is recruited, not from the war veterans, but from the younger generation that has grown up since the war. The New Path It was out of natural revulsion from war, aye, from the fear of another war that the second path was suggested nt the Versailles Conference. This was embodied in the League of Nations Covenant. Tho League of Nations wiis the instrument provided to preserve the peace of the world. Before the war the concerted action of the European diplomats and especially the round table conferences of ambassadors which met in London under tho promptings of Sir Edward Grey, smoothed out ditlieulties and avoided more th a one war. But ambassadors had no powers; there was no obligation for nations to abide by the decisions, and there was no compulsion on any power to enter into con ferenee. The war came when it did because Germany would not confer on the matter. The League of Nations. The League of Nations provides the instrument for continuous conference for the maintenance of peace. Just cs the presence of armaments make for war, so do their absence make for peace. Let the citizens of a community about armed and you will have private warfare; take away those arms ant' you have people going tc the law courts. That principle, it is desired, shall be applied to nations. Each member nation of tho League recognises “that the maintenance of peace requires: (a) the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, md (b) the enforcement by common action of international obligations.” There are of course, many other obligations, but I want to particularly deal with the disarmament problem to night. You will seo that national safety is criterion of the needs of national defence. Germany has been disarmed

and it was a condition of that disarming that the Allies should follow suit. 1 Britain has gone further along tho line I of disarmament than any other country. Now Britain ca go no further, consistent with its obligation to its far Hung Empire. France has not disarmed and there is small prospect of ) her doing so, and the same is to bo <*aid i of Italy. The attitude of France is, to my mind, the crux of the whole matterj Let us, therefore, consider her position: France and Her Attitude. Tho attitude of France towards the League was summarised in a recent speech by Al. iDoumergue. “France, ha said, hud suffered too much from the war not to appreciate peace at its full 4 value, but her own history had taught J he only too well that there could b< no lasting peace unless the security ol her frontiers was fully assured. She was, therefore, obliged to remembei that so long as the league of Nations - had not at its disposal a military force . strong enough to impose its decisions • upon recalcitrants, she must bo on net • guard and to a great extent rely upon I herself. France had the greater right to think thus, since she hud just been f confronted with a sudden and discouI- certing event, the present : niportance ant further consequence of which must not be under estimated, because tho history of the country where it happened offered a precedent fraught with a lesson it would be dangerous to fori get. A country like France, which I knew by bitter experience to what painful and sudden events it might be exposed, had no right in the absence of a strong organised international force to allow its own material strength to be reduced below tho level dictated by , its need for security and tho integrity , of its home and oversea territory, tor which the present generation wua answerable to those of the future.” The sudden and disconcerting event > of which Al. Doumorgue spoke was the proposed Customs Union between Austria and Germany. Why was Franco so apprehensive of to-day? She had the security which the League provided, but it was not enough. She had the security of the Locarno Treaty, where- . by Britain had agreed to come to- her aid if France was attacked. Yet she was apprehensive. One factor which aggravated the situation was that the withdrawal of the troops from the occupation of the German Rhineland had been followed not by any conciliatory gestures on the part of Germany, but by demonstrations of Nationalism. France therefore asks: Was the evacuation of the Rhineland a mistake! Germany’s Attitude. Germany’s attitude, however, was a great degree the outcome of the economic depression. The loss of Upper Silesia to Poland, of Alsace Lorraine to France, and the existence ! of tliij Polish corridor right across Germany to tho Free City of Dantzig, plus ' tho Reparations payments all tend lo aggravate the now generation of Ger- . mans. But when we consider, Germany has done remarkably well. She has established a republic, survived a revolution. and maintained a consistently reasonable attitude towards other countries. But she is growing restless of the dominance of France. Tho recent ! move of establishing a customs union with Austria has been proclaimed as an assertion of Germany’s right 1© , stand on equal footing with other countries of the world. Unless, L the demands of Germany are conceded and a reduction of French armamenti v are brought about, Germany may herself, arm, and then tho whole dangerous business may start over again, the business of preparing for the next war and of hastening it on. Tho outlook therefore is not promising and I don’t want to pretend that it is. Our Responsibility. I Now it is precisely because the outlook is not promising that our responsibility is so great. In France the Chauvinistic influences are approximately ■ equal to those favouring international co-operation. In Germany to-day, X should say that the influences for international amity exceed those favourably to militaristic enterprise, but supI port for the League may die if the i League itself does not boar fruit. Public opinion in the countries of ’ Europe is fairly evenly balanced foi land against the League. Willi these [countries in such a condition outside influences count for much. They may I become the deciding factor at any I time. New Zealand is a full member of the League of Nations. Our Govleri inent will act upon public opinion. here. In the end, therefore the League of Nations depends upon world public opinion. Its greatest enemy is indifference born <if ignorance, and in world affairs indifi ferenee is dangerous. ! It is. therefore, an essential duty of I the citizen to inform himself concern- | ing the League of Nations and its work iso that in due time he may influence I the opinion of his community in favj our of supporting the only instrument i that has yet been fashioned to curb the terrible ratastrophy which is known under the term of “war.”