The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1927. PIOUS POLICY OF DISARMAMENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 76, 21 June 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1927. PIOUS POLICY OF DISARMAMENT

AUTSIDE Geneva, where midsummer beauty alone is an inV spiratiou, there is not much enthusiasm about the prospective results of the three-Powers conference on the limitation of naval armaments. And there is indeed but little cause for enthusiatie anticipation. The most marked limitation in sight is the conference itself. It is limited to the chief naval Powers of the world—Great Britain, the United States and Japan. Together, if their hearts were set on the highest achievement, they could clear the way to a drastic measure of international naval disarmament, but the millenijtm is still below the horizon shrouded in mist. The best that peace-loving nations may hope for on this occasion is an honest agreement not to quicken competition in provocative armaments. It is to be regretted that France and Italy have declined to take an active part in this latest conference on naval disarmament. They are content to be mere onlookers—a role that hinders rather than helps success. Their action stands out in sharp and very unfavourable contrast to their policy at the Washington Conference six years ago, and also at the Geneva discussions less than six weeks ago when their decided views 011 the limitation of naval tonnage heartened the Preparatory Disarmament Commission of the League of Nations. They cannot justifiably blame other nations for suspecting them of speaking with two voices and of being neiffher hot nor cold like a cake half-turned. Of course, circumstances have changed since the glorious occasion of the Washington Conference. Then, it was comparatively easy to secure something like enthusiastic agreement about the limitation of capital warships. In addition to being war-sick, the world was not too sure about the value of huge battleships, each costing six million pounds sterling, and more destructive in theory than in battle practice. So the nations who could not afford to build any more gladly accepted the limitation of tonnage, while the others saw an opportunity for increasing the construction of powerful cruisers, submarines and aircraft, to say nothing about the new and fearful mechanical devices for the wholesale destruction of life in order to make the world safe for democracy. After the practical failure of the League of Nations recently to secure agreement on the universal limitation of armaments (the discussions were hailed as a theoretical suceees) Lord Robert Cecil, an optimistic idealist, declared that disarmament was a perfectly practicable policy. He had to confess, however, that the issue had passed from the hands of the League’s Commission to those of the public. “Therefore, it only remains for an enlightened public opinion to insist that this greatest of all reforms shall be carried out.” It is wonderful how much faith statesmen put on enlightened public opinion when they themselves have failed to answer the demand of enlightened public opinion. Disarmament is rather a big load to pass on to the public. Everything considered, we need not look for a great gift toward durable peace from Geneva. The heart of man is as hard as ever, and the old doctrine of original sin appears to be permanent. But let us cheer the excellence of pious intentions and help President Coolidge to secure another term of administrative power.