AN INTERNATIONAL FORCE [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Stn,—Of
the journalists and statesmen who persistently advocate Disarmament is there one who would not imme- diately, and of necessity, arm himself if the Police and Military Forces of his own country were suddenly disbanded, and would the risk of bloodshed be appreciably affected if, in such circumstances, he carried two weapons instead of one ? If the contention implied is an accurate one, is it reasonable, when dealing with the problem of Armaments, to expect nations to disarm without first providing an internationally organized protective force which will give them that security as nations which a municipal police force provides for indi- viduals ? The very term "security" implies either immunity from or superiority to external forces and clearly such im- munity or superiority cannot be enjoyed by every nation simultaneously since, as in the case of Japan and China, one nation's security constitutes another nation's insecurity.
The limitations imposed upon Japan's naval forces at the Washington and London Conferences did not, in the least degree,. safeguard China from the recent attack made upon her at Shanghai, and I think it is true to say that Mr. Hoover's latest Disarmament proposals, were they adopted, would in no better degree safeguard the , world at large against warfare. It can hardly be doubted that both the United States and Russia could best serve the cause of Peace by joining the League and loyally helping to equip it with such a force as will provide its members severally with the same measure of security that individuals enjoy by reason of their possession of municipal police forces. If such a force were established_ both Disarmament and the abolition of gas warfare, bacterial warfare and submarines would, I think, follow as a matter of course.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
