ANOTHER WAR?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 353, 14 October 1932, Page 4

ANOTHER WAR?

When Mr. J. L. Garvin, one of the most emlnent British publicists, writes as he has done concerning Franco-German relations, it can be taken for granted that there is a strong element of danger in the situation. On one hand France is demanding the observance of treaty rights that place her in a special position of advantage over Germany, her nearest and most dangerous rival. Germany, on the other, is being kept in the position of an inferior Power because she lost the war, but nominally on the ground that she was the definite aggressor in a conflict for which the great nations were strangely prepared. All the requisites for conflict are present in this situation, and the one thing certain is that Germany will not j be content to remain a second- ■ class Power when others about j her are gaining strength as the I years go by. In her demand for ! armament equality Germany is ; not bhiffing. K that cannot be j obtained by reduetion in the j arms of France and other Euro- ■ pean countries, the only course j then open to Germany is to at- ; tempt to catch them up. For j the present France, as the lead- | ing military Power in Europe, is the most important factor in the situation. If she declared for disarmament other European countries would not hesitate to t follow her example, for it is : only fear that is driving the nations to huge expenditure each . year on preparations for war. As an earnest of her goodwill, it is now reported that France has proposalS for disarmament which are to be discussed by

M. Herriot and Mr. MacDonald. In essence they are not much diiferent from those which she submitted in the early stages of the Geneva Conference, the main exception being that there should be simultaneous and progressive disarmament over a period of five years. For the rest, internationalisation of air forces and aggressive armaments under the auspices of the League of Nations is suggested. There has been indecisive discussion al-

ready concerning what cah be classified as "aggressive" armaments, and it is clifflcult to believe that any mobile aids to warfare can be put outside this group. If, however, JFrance is sincere in her proposal for progressive disarmament, some of the dangers at present inherent in the international situation may be removed. When actua conflict is in the air, France proposes that a special tribunal should be set up to decide which is the aggressor nation; when that has been decided, the forces under the control of the League will presumably be used in its defence. In these international disputes it is not always easy to decide which eountry is the aggressor. It takes two to make a quarrel, and it would be difficult to say who was the aggressor in many of the wars of the past century. Apart from that, the League of Nations Covenant already provides for the settlement of such a question, and the setting-up of another hody possessing similar powers woulc. imply lack" of f aith in the eificacy of the League as an arbiter in international disputes. Nothing must be done that will undermine the authority of the League; it is the greatest safeguarc. that mankind possesses, and it should be the constant effort of all nations to strengthen, not weaken it. Criticism has been levelled against it, but the League can only be as strong' as the* member States will allow. If it has failed in any particular it is because some eountry or group

of countries has been at fault. Disarmament, and every other question of international importance is entwined with. the welfare of the League of Nations, and if it is allowed to clevelop and flourish as the sole arbiter in these questions, the dangers tvhich Mr. Garvin declares can precipitate another European war in five years will be greatly Sminimised, if not removed.