WORLD DISARMAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1923, Page 4

WORLD DISARMAMENT.

LORD ROBERT CECIL’S PROPOSALS. (.By K. Dwyer Gray). A cablegram from London recently made reference to a scheme for world disarmament, based upon a. proposed “Treaty of Mutual Guarantees,” and added that the draft treaty would be submitted for League of Nations’ consideration at Geneva ill September. The following are the facts so far as they are known in Australia to ditto. Obviously they are doubly important because of the inclusion of l.ord Robert Cecil in the present British Cabinet, anti tin- possibility of “mutual igttit ran tees” being utilised, not only to end Europe's immediate insecurity, bill to offer all nations permanent guarantees of safety against aggression of a character warranting worldwide disarmament. Point 4 of President Wilson's famous fourteen peace terms (which afterwards became armistice terms) reads-

“Adetiunte guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be teduced to the lowest point consistent with national safety.” All will admit that “the snarling world” is not disarmed. It will further not he disputed by students of international affairs that fear is and ever has been one of the root causes of universal armament.

lit September, 1921, the Second Assembly of the League of Nations requested an important body, constituted in consequence of a resolution passed by the First Assembly in December, 1920, and known ns “The Temporary Mixed Commission for the Reduction of Armaments,” to make suggestions

for a practical scheme Tor the reduction of nnlioani armaments. At the third session of this commission in February, 1922, Lord Esher submitted the text of nine tentative resolutions. A few months later the commission, already fully representing the chief European Powers belonging to the Longue of Nations, was reinforced by seven new members, in accordance with Assembly directions. The commission then considered a draft resolution in four articles, brought before the commission by Lord Robert Cecil, on the principles of disarmament. Tn this it was frankly stated that governments could not be expected to assume the responsibility for a serious reduction in armaments, unless they received in exchange a satisfactory guarantee of the. safety of their countrv.

A GREAT PROBLEM. The temporary mixed commission referred the enormously important problem of a general treaty of mutual guarantees back to the assembly for a definition of the principles which the assembly could approve as the basis or such a treaty. In September, 1922, after a very lengthy discussion, the assembly agreed unanimously,—(l) Thai the reduction in armaments mu.s't he general, that is, must he accepted by all, or practically all States, both members and non-members of the League: and (2) that States which disarmed must enter into a common mutual obligation, that all of them would suppoit any one of them iliat was the victim of aggression. The assembly directed the mixed commission to prepare a draft treaty. Accordingly the two great principles stated were shortly after worked out into concrete practical obligations, in M draft treaty of 28 articles, drawn up by l.ord Robert Cecil, and this draft treaty was submitted to a preliminary examination by the .Mixed Commission in session at Geneva on February 9-12 last. The Mixed Commission was favourable in general, but decided (1) to submit the draft treaty to the “Permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval, ami Air Questions” for a technical opinion; (2) to constitute a sub-com-mission, to study tlie draft treaty Tn minutest detail, and furnish a report alter having received the technical opinion of the permanent Advisory Commission, on the understanding that this should be given before May 1. This sub-commission was constituted as follows:—General tnagaki r'.rapan), General Marini (Italy), Lielitcii-alll-Colonel Requin (Franco), AT. I.ohner (Switzerland), M. Jansen (Belgium), M. lionin-Longaro (Italy), M. Jiniliaux (France), ami Lord RobertCoed (.Britain.. The Mixed Temporary Commission also decided (.')) to resume deliberations at Geneva on June -1 of this year, and (!) “to com mini lento Lord Robert Cecil’s draft, through the council, to all the Governments of the Stales, members of the League asking them to examine it and give their opinion.” The Council of the League, at its January session, also urged State members of the League, which had not yet replied to the inquiry relating to their armament requirements, for national security to do so before June l, 192,'i. •MARKING AN EPOCH.

.1 it no 4, 192.'}, was, therefore, an important da to. Presumably the Government of Mr Bruce roooivod tlm draft of Lord Robert Cecil’s proposed treaty, and forwarded an opinion to Geneva about it, on behalf of Australia, as a State-member of the League. Presumably also other State-members did the same, but the nature of the opinions expressed, on behalf of Australia or any other country, has not been disclosed. Id is obvious from (bo cablegram published however, that the Mixed Temporary Commission, sitting at Geneva early in June, must have seen no reason for discouragement in the general replies received and tho technical and other reports on Lord Robert Cecil's draft, for (lie “Morning Post” (London) now slates that “a scheme will he presented in Geneva on September 3,” based \ on this draft, and adds that “whilst tho Allied Governments are disunited over the reparations problem, a Commission of the League of Nations has been sitting in Paris, deliberating a plan which, if realised, should reduce the problem into a shadow.” It would certainly do that. The full results, in fact, would be epochal. Lord Robert Cecil’s comments on the proposals are both important and interesting. He says: “If such a treaty ns is proposed were generally adopted it is clear that the - different Governments and peoples would obtain a security far greater than they now have, and far greater than they could obtain by any other means. For such a treaty would, in effect, mean the abolition of aggressive war, and the consequent outlawry of any State which, for whatever cause, attacked its neighbour, and an undertaking that the whole community of States would combine to support the victim ot attack and to punish the aggressor. | ft such a system were brought into cfiective operation the Governments would obtain that security on which disarmament can he based. Jt must be recognised that the abolition of the right of war goes beyond tho provisions of the covenant as ft stands. Tho community of States cannot afford to allow wars to continue. They are a menace to civilisation as a whole, and it has heroine essential to prevent their outbreak. It is not enough, however, by a solemn declaration to abolish war. If tho treaty of mutual

guarantees. Is' to achieve its end, if it is to create- the confidence from which disarmament will follow, it must organise the security which it purports to afford. The draft.treaty proposes that the Council of the League shall he responsible for determining which Stale is the aggressor, and it would be obliged to make this decision within four days of the time when the fact of an attack is notified to the SecretaryGeneral of the League. BLOCKADE THE AGGRESSOR.

Failing other tests, the State which has violated the territory of another is to he deemed to have committed an act of aggression. The draft treaty provides that every guarantor State should immediately participate in a blockade of the aggressor, and that it should lend to the State which is attacked the support of a proportion—-one-fourth is suggested—of its naval and aerial forces. For States which believe themselves in special danger, and which on this account make a demand for special assistance to the Council of the League, the Council shall negotiate on their behalf a special treaty defining the military support to he given by its neighbours against any special danger bv which the State in question believes itself to he menaced. For the organisation of the forces thus placed at the disposal of the State which it attacked, the draft treaty suggests that either the menaced State or some other of the guarantor States should be given a mandate from the Council to co-ordinate the defensive forces and to direct the camnaign against the aggressor.' It may he hoped that all will agree that such a treaty of mutual guarantees as this would lie an immense step forward. The draft is. however, only a preliminary to the actual work of material disarmament

that is an essential condition of the guarantee, and the Temporary Mixed Commission is also at work upon the principle on which such disarmament can ho carried out.” Lord Robert does not consider (hot certain suggested difficulties in the way of abolishing the right to war are of any serious importance. He believes that the various institutions of the League of Nations “are growing so rapidly in strength and the power and prestige which the League is acquiring arc increasing so fust” that these institutions will “within quite it shortperiod he it hie, by their moral authority alone, to secure a pacific settlement of almost any dispute that may iii-iso.” TTo remarks Ihnl the first step that was taken was to abolish the light of individual citizens to take the law into their own hands, and concludes: “When the King’s peace was thus declared to ho inviolable, legal remedies for disputes were subsequently worked out without great inconvenience or delay. Progress in the organisation of international justice will he along the same lines.” The proposals may initiate a new world eifi. They are British in origin, and the honours will he with England and Lrod Robert Cecil if they succeed.