The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1932. FRENCH DISARMAMENT.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18796, 18 November 1932, Page 6

The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1932. FRENCH DISARMAMENT.

The French Government has Issued Its proposals for disarmament and says that they are the only method of meeting the German claim for equality of armaments. It means by this somewhat egotlstio pronouncement that nothing less than this will lnduoe It to agree to disarmament. Allowance must be made for a nation which was invaded twice within 50 years, but even so the French are not displaying the logical qualities with which they are usually credited. In their own mind the big armaments are maintained solely for defence, but unfortunately they are equally available for attaolc, and it is but ton years since France marched into the Ruhr and started the long train of events which have brought about the conditions of to-day. It is possible to sympathise with France without considering that she is acting wisely. When the Versailles Treaty was drawn up there was an agreement that America and Britain should together guarantee France against attack >)y Germany. When this oame before the Amerloan Senate for ratification they rejected it, and as the agreement applied to both countries Britain also withdrew. France therefore considered herself absolved from the understanding that the victors in the war would disarm, and the Locarno Treaty and the German acceptance of the loss of and Lorraine have not moved her resolution to retain her army. Moreover, the invasion of the Ruhr was not the only instance of her abuse of the monopoly of arms. The Versailles Treaty resolved that the people of Upper Silesia should decide by plebiscite whether they would join Poland or remain with Germany, They voted for Germany, but the Council of Ambassadors (which was controlled by France) adjudged the area to Poland. Germany has agreed that the boundary between herself and France shall be considered to be settled, but she refuses at the same time to consider the eastern frontier settled. That Is where the danger of war exists—between Germany and Poland. There is enough provocation in the Polish corridor, and when we add to it Upper Silesia, the danger to peace is easily apparent. Under these circumstances France proposes that armies should be reduced to ttie lowest possible number, and that the League of Nations should be provided with a large and effective force to deal with any aggressor. The criticism in London is that the proposals deal only with security and do nothing for disarmament. It would seem that they miss the point. The League is to he provided with a force to deal with aggressors, but no provision is made for power to deal with conditions that point to aggression. At present Europe is settled on conditions dictated by France, and France wishes the League lo perpetuate those conditions. Germany conceives that she lias been aggrieved, and unless Hi ere is some tribunal before which she can make her claim she will undoubtedly commit a breach of the peace, parlirularly as Poland lias shown no more wisdom than Franco and lias oppressed the Germans left within her frontiers. There are details in tho French proposals which deserve full con-

sideration. The army to be provided for the League will assuredly become a fact, if the League is to last. A body which exists to make laws and promulgate decrees must have power to enforce them, and the League will not stop at making recommendations, The proposal that the League should control the manufacture of munitions and the international inspection of them is valuable, but both these aro subsidiary to the power to make the changes which the changing conditions of mankind require. In all nations, even the most conservative, there is a constant necessity to alter and amend in order to meet the changes that take place between Individuals and classes.

In the same way the relations between different countries stand in constant need of readjustment. One grows and another wilts, and it is futile to pretend that both stand where they stood a hundred years before. There has never existed any power to make these changes, which have had to be brought about by war, with their attendant cruelties, injustices, -waste and Ineffectiveness. A tribunal which could decide on such matters would be much more likely to achieve Justice than arbitrament by arms, and would do away with an incredible amount of human suffering. There are those who say that man is naturally’pugnacious, and that it is useless to hope for such a consummation, it may be so, but it must be admitted that no attempt lias yet been made to provide an alternative to war. There is much in the Prenoh proposals that deserves support, but as an adequate contribution to the cause of peace they require to be supplemented in a manner that some other nation will have to undertake.