THE ROAD TO PEACE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 April 1929, Page 7

THE ROAD TO PEACE

SIR FREDERICK MAURICE ON DISARMAMENT

NAVAL REDUCTION

A LINE OE AGREEMENT

Ahijor - General Sir Frederick Maurice, vice-president of the Rritish Legion, and Director of .Military Operations Imperial General Staff during the great part of the war, spoke recently on “ The 'Road to Peace.” Sir Frederick said it should not he unusual for men like him to come 'forward m favour of limitation of armaments. Literal disarmament, he delated to he not a practical possibility. The term was even unfortunate. It alienated those who knew literal dis’rmanient to he impracticable, and was apt to enlist the support of rather vague-minded idealists who had not got their feet upon the ground. Rut advocacy of limitation of araniainents was perfectly logical in one who had spent most of his life as a regular soldier in the Rritish Army.

“ I am not suggesting that we should proceed to limit our armaments before other people limit, theirs,” Sir Frederick proceeded. 11 The very first proposition that the League, of Nations laid down when it started the examination of this problem in 1920 was that the reduction of armaments to bo effected must he general, and tnnt I regard as a fundamental truth, if limitation of armaments is local, you are fikely to increase, rather than diminish the danger of war.” Sir Frederick Maurice recalled that on February 14, ten years ago, he was present when President Wilson read out in the Great Hall of the French Foreign Office to an assembly of the leading statesmen of the Allies, the first draft of the Covenant of the League of Nations. “ I heard him,” he proceeded, “ read article 8 of the Covenant, which recited that the members of the League pledged themselves to a reduction of armaments to the lowest terms compatible with full safety, and the fulfilment of international obligations. It is ten years since u;e put our name to that pledge. It is very nearly ten years since we put our signature to the treaties of peace with all our former enemies, and upon each of those former enemies there was imposed a very drastic reduction of armaments and the clauses defining in great detail the form that reduction should take were prefaced by the words that those reductions were to he the prelude to a general reduction of armaments.”

in the interval, with the exception of the Washington Conference, there has been nothing worthy of a place on the principal pages.of the newspapers. But despair would not produce results. Faith and confidence were not only needed, but despair was not warranted. Between 1922 and 1927 the numbers of men in the armies of Europe had been reduced from 4,411,000 to 2,742,000—a reduction of something like 75 per cent of the present strength of the armed forces .of Europe. That wills not a negligible fact. And between 1921, the year ol the Washington Conference, and 1920, the total tonnage of the world’s navies had been reduced from 4,988,00 tons to 4,llo,ooo—tons a reduction equivalent to about 85 'per cent of the tonnage of the British navy of to-day. Movement had been slow, but enough had surely been done to give us confidence that will) faith and intelligence and earnestness, this problem was soluble. (Applause.)

TH JO LINE OF PKOGKESS. Sir Frederick examined the methods by which tlie.se reductions had been brought about, emphasising that it was not hv agreement on general problems, hut by dealing with localised problems 'n the Locarno Fact for Western Europe that success had been attained. He did not. he said, expect that the forthcoming meeting of the Preparatory Commission and of the Armaments Commission of the League would produce any very startling results. It was in the progress made b,v the Locarno Pact that he saw the indications of the right line towards fur ther progress. “The whole experience' of the last ten years,” he said, “shows that if you are to get progress, von must have adequate political preparation before-hand.”

In addition to the reductions he had mentioned, there had been going on the more important process of reducing the numbers of men in training

under the system of eonseription on tho Continent, and modifying the periods during which the men were trained. In the case of France, that meant that her power to mobilise her forces quickly, and to act aggressively, had lieon enormously reduced. It was the best method by which the limitation of armaments could he applied to conscript armies. All recent experience, he suggested, showed that an attempt to draft an all-embracing treaty was not politically practicable, owing to the complication and variation of conditions in the various countries. It did show, however, that it was politically practicable to tackle one at a time if necessary, the various problems which caused uneasiness and •friction between nations.

Sir Frederick proceeded to advo ate the consideration' of a Locarno Fact for F'stern Europe, the evaeuat'on of the Rhineland, and the final seitlomeni of the question of reparations as measures more important 'for the- general limitation of armaments than the counting of heads and machine-guns, and battleship tonnages.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS AT SEA

Turning to the subject of the limitation of naval armaments, Sir Frederick said that everything hung upon tho oroblem of the 'freedom of the seas—neutral rights at sea. That, he said, was the one subject- which united the whole political opinion of the United States of America. Until it was tackled there could he no progress in naval limitation. This was not a question for the lawyers or for the sailors: it was a question 'for statesmen.

“ The only way to tackle the problem,” Sir Frederick declared, “is to deal with it in a broad and-statesman-like way. I suggest that we should go to the United States, and say to them, \V<- .mo one of the constituent members >f the League of Nations. We suggest to you that if ever, at the request of the League, we have to carry out a blocKade against a country which has broken its pledges to the League, and has been declared an outlaw nation, you should agree not to interfere with the blockade. if you will give that pledge, we will give you a pledge that if you are ever engaged in a War at sea, we shall not interfere with your shipping, except under the old and well-established rules of close blockade at sea.’ There is the broad general programme of policy which seems to me likely to produce definite results and also to remove what is now, I think, the only possible cause of friction between ourselves and that great people on the other side of the Atlantic. It is worth everything that We all can do to bring about a settlement with that country. There is nothing more likely to conduce to the establishment if the permanent peace of the world. “ Armies,” said Sir Frederick, in conclusion, “do not spring up when the dragon’s leetli are sown. They are the result of political conditions, and it is by examining these scientifically and carefully, and proceeding to settle them at the points where there is friction, or liability of friction, between nations, that you will get limitation of armaments and permanent peace.” (Applause.)