THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1927 THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 28 November 1927, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1927 THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

rpiE preliminary disarmament Conference 'that is to sit at Geneva is likely to occupy a prominent position in our cable news for the week, probably for longer. The discussions that are to take place will be purely tentative, the object being merely to ascertain to some extent the feeling of the various nations represented on the subject which is to be more seriously and responsibly considered at a further conference later on. At the present meeting there will probably be very little more done than to receive and to some extent examine proposals that may be put forward with a view to clearing the air a little of possibly impracticable suggestions and so facilitate the work of the later conference by removing causes of unnecessary friction. There need be no doubt but that, as in previous kindred international assemblies, a good deal, if not the main weight, of responsibility will be placed on the shoulders of the British delegation. This is one reason why we cannot but deplore the ill-timed censure motion which the Labour Opposition tabled last week in the House of Commons, and on which some comment was made in our Saturday’s issue. When prominent political leaders such as Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George do their utmost to disparage their Government by the attribution of entirely false motives, it can scarcely be matter of surprise if the foreign nations should watch the movements of British delegates with something akin to suspicion. What has thus been done in Britain’s own Parliament is probably about the worst disservice to the cause of international peace that could have been devised. Lord Cecil’s resignation from his place in the British Cabinet had doubtless a good deal of effect in the same direction. But he, on his part, has been as careful as possible to modify that effect, which, of course, he could not but recognise. He has admitted the possibility at any rate of his having taken a wrong view in urging that Britain might have gone a long way further than she did in the recent discussion with America and Japan on the limitation of navies. But we fancy that, taking the Empire all round, the great majority will be satisfied that Great Britain went as far as its safety would permit. Since then the announcement of a reduction in her programme of naval construction has done a great deal to convince the world of the sincerity of her desire to avoid anything like a suggestion of aggressive intention. Even in America this is receiving some recognition. It is in her own council halls that her motives are most openly impugned. It does not seem as if much practical a.ssislauee towards the desired end v. e >■ I > I c expected from (lie I ,j, I which sends: no did to the C’.’life.

ence, but has in attendance the customary “observer” to watch American interests. The President. Mr. Coolidge, has again, according to a Washington cable to-day, reaffirmed his country’s policy of aloofness. He “believes that whatever steps are taken to preserve peace should be taken individually, not acting in concert with other nations,” and he sees “no gain for the United States” in agreeing to meet the other nations in discussions on the avoidance of war. This, by the way, is in direct disaccord with what Lord Cecil had to say at a recent meeting of the general council of the British League of Nations Union. In his view the policy to be adopted is that of “disarmament by general international agreement, and not by separate Governments.” The League of Nations has, of course, commended itself in no way to the present American President and Government, which have consistently declined to have any active part in it. Indeed, America has gone beyond this, inasmuch as she has been working hard to secure the detachment of the South American republics from their adherence to the League, and in Brazil’s case has had some measure of success. The aim of the United States is to establish more firmly some kind of Pan-American League which will have the effect of practically setting the New World apart from the Old. In such a league the United States would, of course, hold an entirely dominant hand. Although the movement has been initiated and several Pan-American Congresses have been held, most of the southern republics are decidedly shy of placing themselves any further under the widespreadmg wings of the American eagle. As to the League of Nations itself, probably Sir Austen Chamberlain appreciates better than any other British statesman its possibilities and its limitations, for he more than any' other has come in direct contact with the factors that are working for its success and for its failure. Of his own sincere and earnest desire for its success there can be no shadow of doubt. In his most recent speech reported in newspapers to handone delivered, of all places, at the historic Colchester Oyster Feast—he said that there were idealists who assigned to the League potentialities that were at yet unattainable, and also stern realists who denied to it even the measure of success it had undoubtedly achieved. “For my own part,” he went on, “I believe we serve the League no less truly, and perhaps with better results, if we take it for what it is, if we avoid pretending that it is more than it is, and if, while for ever seeking to fashion it to the fabric of the time, we recognise that it has not yet attained that perfection we hope it may yet achieve.” That the influence of the League is growing yearly Sir Austen is firmly sure. “Its annual assembly draws together in increasing numbers those men who in each country are charged with the conduct of foreign affairs. I repeat here with profound conviction that there is no nation to-day, be it a member of the League or not, which can conduct its foreign policy as though the League were not in existence.”