DISARMAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 180, 2 August 1932, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

[DEAL OF NATIONS THE ADVANCES MADE WASTE OF WAR. Speaking to members and friends of the Wellington branch of the League of Nations Union, the Rev. Gordon McKenzie spoke of disarmament as an idea] of civilised nations to be reached, not at once, but by steady progressive stages. Already, he said, great advances had been made towards the ideal. Methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes were centuries old in the East and were practised among important European cities in the Middle Ages, but what is now known as arbitration really began in the year 1794 in the Jay Treaty between Great Britain and the United. States, chiefly for the settlement of the boundary between U.S.A, and Canada. During the 19th. century 471 disputes were settled by arbitration, and in .1918 83 treaties existed for the compulsory arbitration of disputes. As Arnold Forster said, in no case has a dispute once submitted to arbitration ended in. war. The success of arbitration in disputes among the nations, together with the Covenant of the League, led to the creation of a permanent body of judges at The Hague in 1922. When the Court of International Justice was established it was hoped that all nations would accept the obligation to submit to its judgment :.ll important cases of dispute, and particularly legal cases. That hope was not fulfilled, chiefly because the Great Powers could not agree, and there was therefore instituted what was known as the “optional clause,” which, in .1929, forty-two States signed. The Covenant of the League provides that all States shall try “peaceful procedure” with regard to disputes and the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes that signatory nations shall bind themselves to “peaceful settlement”—an important difference, and an attempt to close the gap in the Covenant. Up to 1930 the League dealt with 17 disputes which threatened to end in war. Further efforts to bridge the gap formulated outside the framework of the League were contained in the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, the Geneva Protocol, the Locarno Treaties, the Pact of Paris, and the Kellogg Pact. Looked at from an historical point of view great progress had already been made. War Not Inevitable.

The policy of “splendid isolation” was no longer practicable, continued Mr. McKenzie; the increasing oneness of the world was more than a welcome gain; it was a portent. Civilised law had ended assault and battery as a means of settling disputes among individuals, though it had not and could not’ end disputes. The argument commonly used against the League of Nations that “war is inevitable; men have always fought and men always will fight.” could be challenged as a flat untruth. Quarrels were inevitable, but fighting was not. Disarmament was possible, not because it called for ah unattainable ideal, but because it frankly admitted the possibility of international disagreement and set about discharging the passion of nations by ways loss intolerable than that of war. It was not yet practicable politics to talk about abolition of armaments, and when he used the word “disarmament” he spoke of the limitation and progressive reduction of armaments. Britain’s Pledges. Britain was pledged to disarmament through the Peace Conference and all Peace Treaties, and was one of 50 nations which signed clause 8 of the League’s agreement recognising that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national obligations.” The first great reason for disarmament was moral, a second was the more prosaic business of money. The upkeep of fighting services was notoriously expensive, and England was to-day divided between self-satisfaction and anxiety because she had cut down her armament expenditure to a little over two million pounds per week. The cost of armament was largely a modern one. in 1858 Europe spent 95 millions on fighting forces, less than England spends alone to-day. In 1883 the figure was 163 millions, in 1908 299 millions, in 1913 486 millions. In 1931 Europe probably spent a little more than in 1913. Those figures did not include the cost of wars, but merely of preparation for wars.

It had been said that disarmament would create unemployment, but that was fallacious when a long view was taken. Expenditure upon armament was wasted money; the same amount spent along productive lines would provide vastly more employment in the end. Gradual reduction of armaments would spread the effect upon employment, and in any case it would be cheaper for the nation to keep the men “on the dole.” The third great reason for disarmament among all nations was the rapidly increasing machinery for mass production of death. Centuries Rgo the moat was the castle’s main defence; to-day attack was the only defence, and today the target was changed from the “thin red line” to the non-combatants beyond. War as it would be carried on between great Powers in the future was capable of bringing all that we know to-day as civilisation to a sudden and appalling end. The European Situation. Referring to the European position to-day, Mr. McKenzie said that there were two main schools of thought, one, led by Franco that Law without the sword cannot stand and the other, led by England and America, that Force is no remedy. France stood out in 1919 till England and the United States indicated willingness to enter into mutual guarantees to support France in case of attack. The United States refused to ratify the treaty, and as a result England was also freed from her bond, and France felt still that she had been led into an agreement by undertakings of a guarantee which did not eventuate. France, in other words, was still fighting for the balance of power, and was still prepared to disarm if guaranteed assistance in ease of attack.