New Disarmament Hopes
. AS result of the speeches in the House of Commons a week ago and the promulgation of the French plan at Geneva on Monday the disarmament discussions have become at once more hopeful and more critical than at any moment since the Geneva Conference opened. What- ever it may have seemed necessary to say of some of Sir John Simon's previous utterances on disarmament, his recent speech was everything it should be. It is true - that neither he nor Mr. Baldwin had specific proposals .to put forward, hut the • result: of their" two Speeches was to quicken hope in all circles, whether in this country, in Germany, or in France, where real disarmament is recognized as essential to the safety, if not to the survival, of the world. Nothing could have been more impressive than Mr. Baldwin's momentous warning of the inevitable results for civilization of the maintenance of vast aerial navies, and nothing more valuable, for it is not till men habitually unimpressionable are aroused to realities by political leaders as little suspect of emotional pacifism as the Lord President that they will settle to the serious consideration of the price it may be expedient to pay for immunity from such perils.
Any plan such as the French Government has now disclosed in its completeness has one inevitable weakness. The concrete is always vulnerable. No scheme is perfect At the best it must contain features which everyone dislikes, but which stand because the alternative is something that everyone would dislike a great deal more. That is the starting-point for any objective examination of the French proposals. They arc an alternative to war, and almost any alternative to war is better than war. They postulate, moreover, not merely a world vaguely aspiring for peace, but a world organized for peace. That means frankly a world organized internationally, as every civilized country is organized internally, for the prevention, through the prompt application of disciplined force on a small scale, of any unlicensed resort to force on a great scale. If that principle is not admitted, not only the present French plan, but any other con- ceivable scheme of disarmament, falls to the ground, for no nation will reduce its armaments till it is satisfied that the world as a whole regards resistance to violations of the peace as a collective interest and will join-in such resistance as a collective duty. Fortunately that principle, is not, only admitted but impregnably established, for it is the manifest basis of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and it emerges no less irresistibly by implication from the Kellogg Pact.
The French therefore have rested their plan on sure foundations when they associate a reduction of armaments with guarantees of mutual defence. The complementary principle, such measures of disarmament as will every- where strengthen defence and weaken offence, has already. been approved by the American, British, Italian and many other Governments at Geneva, though the detailed methods by which the principle is to be applied will demand prolonged discussion. There is far more reason why this country, at any rate, should start with a predis; position in favour of the French plan than with a prejudice against it. It provides, to begin with, equality of status for Germany, broadly along the lines laid down by Sir John Simon in the House of Commons: It calls for the accept- ance by signatories of the Kellogg Pact of a more than passive neutrality in the event of a breach of the Pact. To expect the United States to go so far is to expect a great deal, but nothing is more to our interest than that the Americans should consent at any rate to regard a proved- aggressor as a State with which no nation Can claim to maintain normal trading relations. It calls on members of the League to act, in case of need, on their signature of Article XVI of the Covenant. That Article • raises many difficulties, but at Locarno in 1925 we bound ourselves afresh to execute its provisions "loyally and effectively" within the limits of reasonable possibilities, and Mr. Baldwin at the Lord Mayor's banquet Iasi Friday significantly and opportunely reaffirmed our resolve to carry out every engagement we had signed. It condemns all idea of rearmament, as British Spokesmen have always done. It calls on all the States of Europe to accept the, principles of the General Act of Arbitration. This country has already signed and ratified that Act. It moots the idea of a Mediterranean Pact of mutual assistance to open the way to a larger reduction of naval armaments. Before we dismiss the idea of participating in such a contract we shall do well to remember the Pacific Pact—for mutual consultation only—of which both we and the united- States have been signatories from the first, and to consider of what capital importance it is that peace should be preserved in waters through which the most vital highway of our Imperial communication system runs. If we thought it worth while to pledge ourselves to France and Germany at Locarno, is it certain that there would be more loss than gain in pledging ourselves to France and Italy in the Mediterranean ?
On the actual disarmament proposals there will be wide initial differences .of opinion, but reconciliation should be possible. After Mr. Baldwin's speech attention. in this country will be concentrated mainly on the proposals regarding air warfare, the more so since it is believed that Sir John Simon will have something definite to propose in that sphere at Geneva. The British Government is understood to stand for the complete abolition of military aviation. That is unquestionably right. But the matter cannot stop there. Civil aviation must in some way be controlled, so that it may not be prostituted to military ends. How it shall be controlled is still matter for discussion. The French have proposed one way, which is not by any means necessarily the only way. Everything depends here on the method of approach, and there is only one right method. Civil aviation must be controlled in order that military aviation may be abolished. Let that principle be established and the modus operandi can be worked out. To admit the plea that the control of civil aviation would be inconvenient or uncongenial to existing vested interests in the field of aerial transport or construction, and that therefore it must be abandoned as impracticable, is to condemn the cities of this and other countries inexorably to destruction in its most appalling form. Mr. Baldwin's speech encourages the hope that the Government will keep its eyes resolutely on the great objective, but it will need all the support the common citizens of the country can give it.
Certain features of the French plan, most notably the proposal that the League Council should take its decisions regarding an aggressor by a majority vote (under 'conditions which go far to mitigate the objections .63 that course) raise 'serious doubts. It was inevitable that some features of it should. But with so much concordance, not merely of spirit and purpose but of method, as exists between this country, the United States, France and Italy, and in spite of Germany s Precipitate and provocative condemnation of the plan, there is ground for a new measure of guarded optimistu regarding 'the Geneva discussions, ..4
Previous page
