The Sun WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1927. AMERICA’S POLICY FOR PEACE

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 221, 7 December 1927, Page 8

The Sun WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1927. AMERICA’S POLICY FOR PEACE

'THOUGH Mr. Calvin Coolidge does not choose to run again for * the Presidency of the United States, he still has about eighteen months to serve as the leader of the mighty Republic. Thus his voice on the affairs of his nation is the dominant, if not the loudest, voice of America.

The President’s latest message at the opening of Congress, for its winter session holds more than ordinary interest for communities outside the jurisdiction of “Old Glory.” It discusses the supreme international question of disarmament, and demonstrates clearly and firmly the policy of the United States in time of peace.

It fairly can be said that this policy differs hut little from the declared policy of the British Empire. There is even a similarity in respect of defensive programmes. With the exception of Mr. Coolidge’s reference to national debt, tariff revenue, place names, and Prohibition as a solemn law (which so many Americans apparently do not take solemnly) the address at Washington yesterday might well have been presented acceptably at Westminster any day by Sir Austen Chamberlain. In either case the arguments are almost precisely the same, there is no difference in goodwill and intention, the purposes of each are identical. Viewing with an appraising eye the great possessions of the United States—rich cities, territory in two vast oceans, a large and prosperous population, and the greatest treasure ever bestowed upon any people—President Coolidge sees the necessity of a very substantial sea armament to meet such vital responsibilities. In short, Mr. Coolidge sees everything just as plainly to-day as the whole picture of naval disarmament and all it involves has been seen for years past by Great Britain’s most responsible administrators and plenipotentiaries at Geneva, Locarno, at ail the other resorts where the delegates of nations have discussed the problem of achieving world peace with absolute security. In spite of Mr. Coolidge’s vision, he could not resist the political temptation to gibe at Great Britain because of the disappointing negative result of the recent Tripartite Conference on naval armaments limitation at Geneva. The President acknowledged the existence of the Washington Disarmament Treaty and, without detailing its scope and effect, claimed that it was secured by an unprecedented attitude of generosity on America’s part; but he omitted to acknowledge the fact that’ in the matter of naval disarmament, Great Britain had been and st'ill is in the van all the time and in every way. Thus there was no justification whatever for the President’s oblique stab at Great Britain for the failure of the Tripartite Conference at Geneva. The arguments of the British representatives then and there were precisely the same as those now submitted to Congress in support of America’s defensive armaments policy. But the principles and policy of the United States and the British Empire are so much alike that there is no occasion for hard words. Each is determined to guarantee peace and security at home, and protection for its nationals abroad in time of disorder, each always, in Mr. Coolidge’s phrase, “the servant of world peace.” On that basis of high purpose, on those principles of peace and goodwill, the people of the British Empire will support heartily the determination of America to walk humbly, to do good, to minister to other nations, to work out her own mighty destiny.