The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1921. AMERICA & ARMAMENTS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 223, 15 June 1921, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1921. AMERICA & ARMAMENTS

More than six weeks ago the United States Senate passed a resolution for ending the state of war with Germany, Hungary, and Austria, but reserving all American lights, powers, and claims under the Treaty of Versailles. Ono of to-day’s cablegrams mentions that the House of Representatives has now confirmed this action by passing a resolution in similar terms. The next step by the United States), will be awaited with a good deal of interest. The peace resolution ds merely a declaration; it provides no machinery for effecting or enforcing a settlement with the late enemy countries, but it paves the way for action in this direction by the American Government. From a statement which President Harding made to Congress on April 12, it is to be inferred that in giving effect to the declaratory resolution, the American Government will seek a working understanding with the Allies, and this expectation is strengthened by the actual course of recent events. It is now apparent that the passage of the peace resolution was delayed in order that America might avoid any appearance of deserting the Allies while they were engaged in bringing Germany to terms on the reparation question, and another plain indication of the trend of America's policy is, of course, afforded in her acceptance, with some reservations, of representation bn the Supreme Council and other inter-Allicd bodies. The likelihood of "separate between the United States and the Central Powers in the meaning these words formerly carried has receded. It now seems at least probable that the passage of the peace resolution by Congress may pave the way for definite, cooperation between America and the Allied Powers. Even now some details of the peace settlement as they concern America may' call for gradual and deliberate treatment, but the possibilities of useful co-opera-' tion ought to be tested decisively in connection with the proposal now raised to call an international conference to discuss the limitation of naval and other armaments. The United States Senate three weeks ago passed unanimously an amendment to the Naval Appropriation Bill requesting President Harding to call a conference of Britain, Japan, and the United States to arrange a five-year "holiday” in naval construction. The House of Representatives has not yet voted on this proposal, but its Foreign Affairs Committee last week approved a resolution widening the scope of the projected conference to include other nations and making it apply to land as well as sea forces. No exception can be taken to this extension unless on the ground that by laying down too ambitious a programme at the outset it endangers the prospect of immediate results.

Nothing ought to be allowed to obscure the vital fact that it is open to three nations—the United States, Britain, and Japan—to give the world an effective lead in the limitation of armaments, and that it rests with the United States to say whether this lead is to be given or withheld. As matters stand, America is offered such an opportunity as may never recur of seeking a basis of agreement with Britain and Japan to limit naval armaments. It rests first and foremost with the American Government and Congress to say whether this opportunity is to be neglected or turned wisely to account. Although international relationships are inevitably complex, the central issue stands out clearly, and there can bo no doubt about the. supreme responsibility now devolving upon America. Although the British Empire is in an unexampled degree dependent for its security on the maintenance of an adequate'Navy, Britain, on behalf of the Empire, has intimated that she is content to adopt a one-Power standard of naval strength. There is further proof of her sincere-desire to prevent needless and wasteful expenditure on armaments in the fact (mentioned in a cablegram last week) that at present there is not a single warship of any kind building in Britain for the Roval Naw. Japan, also, though she has a big building programme in hand, has expressly declared through her responsible statesmen that she is nrenared to participate in naval limitation. America, meantime, is engaged upon a building programme which, in the absence of competing effort, would make her a few years hence immensely superior to Great Britain in naval strength. Admitting that the path to a full understanding is beset with detail difficulties, the essential question raised Is whether America is or is not to persist in a policy which would not only condemn the rest of the world to resume a ruinous competition of armaments, but would destroy any hope now raised of establishing secure and lasting peace. From the economic standpoint alone, the effect of unrestricted naval competition would be disastrous. but issues very' much more vitally affecting human welfare arc involved. Happily. although they have been obscured to some extent by the clamour of (actions intent on stirring up racial hatreds, these cardinal issues have been very effectively stated and emphasised in the United States. For instance, in nn article typical of much that Ims appeared in leading American publications. the Metropolitan Mar/azine of New York not long ago urged tlie imperative necessity of substituting an international understanding of broader scope for Ihe Ai’glo-Japanese Alliance. Then (it observed) Hie building of navies against each other will become obviously absurd. Tf Air. Harding does not immediately try to reach a real entente with England and Japan he will not deserve a single vote nt the next election. An understanding with England and Japan would save, us half-a-billion a year in naval and military expense, it would also ennhle England

so to redur-o her expenses that, she could finance the payment of the interest on the ten billions owed us by the Allies. ’That means another half-billion. .In other words, an Anglo-Japancse-Ainericiiii entente (not an alliance, simply an honest endeavour to meet each other halfway on disputed points) would save the American taxpayers one billion dollars a year. And it would obviate nil danger of another and more awful world war. which is not unthinkable, but practically inevitable, unless real steps are taken to prevent it.

In view of the stage to which the affairs of the peace settlement have now been carried in America, the immediate future ought to show whether the American Government is prepared to act with the Allies from this enlightened standpoint in limiting armaments and doing what is possible, to arrest the forces of destruction in the world.