Hopeful Peace Sign

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 649, 29 April 1929, Page 9

Hopeful Peace Sign

AMERICA’S NAVAL OFFER Sir Austen Welcomes Idea SEES PROSPECT OF ULTIMATE SUCCESS British Official Wireless Received 11.8 a.m. RUGBY, Sunday. E oreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain, in a speech at Wakefield, delivered a pronouncement regarding what he described as the notable declaration made by Mr. lugn. S. Gibson,, the American delegate, in the Preparatory Conference on Disarmament at Geneva. He said Mr. Gibson’s declaration was notable in many ways.

“JT has, I think, paved the way for a real advance in that movement toward disarmament, which all the world desires and needs; but it has a special interest for us, because it shows once again how close in these matters are the policies of the United States and Great Britain, and how similar is our outlook and our viewpoint. Mr. Gibson dwelt on the importance which signature of the Kellogg Pact had for the problem of disarmament. I agree with him. Something like four years ago, speaking in the Assembly at Geneva, I said moral disarmament was the preliminary to the physical disarmament of nations. “Mr. Gibson, expressing the opinion of his Government and of President Hoover, dwells upon the new outlook which we ought to bring to these matters in the light of the solemn engagements which we have taken, not to have recourse to war as an instrument of policy. "But our agreement does not stop there. Mr. Gibson defines the purpose and object of the United States as being to secure in the naval field not merely limitation of armaments, but reduction of armaments, and a reduction which shall not be applied to this or that class only, but shall be applied to every class of vessel. "I have already in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister has already in the country, expressed our full adherence to and our acceptance of this policy so declared by the United States, because between them and us there is no difference of purpose, no difference of principle. We, too, desire not merely limitation but reduction of armaments; we, too, desire not merely partial reduction, applied to certain classes of warships, but reduction applied throughout the whole field of naval construction, and as between them and us I do not hesitate to declare my profound conviction that at no time would an arrangement have been difficult, for between them and us war is a contingency that no sane or responsible man will conteniplate as a possibility of the policy which we pursue. “If we had to consider only their needs and ours, long ago we would have made a gentlemen’s agreement expressive of the confidence that we have in one another. We could have said to them, 'Trusting to you that you will build what is required for your needs, we will build only what is required for the necessities of our defences, and in considering our defences we do not have to consider the naval forces of the United States.’ "I stated in last February in words which I venture to repeat to-day that the problem was not whether the United States Navy would be equal to our own. We had accepted fully, and with intention, parity with the United States. It was not that they wanted reduction and we did not. We desired reduction as earnestly as they. "As I said in February, the problem is to find some equation by which we can measure naval strength so that the parity which both nations desire may be reached, and reached at a level which indicates not any increase in the armaments of the world, but reduction. "The significance, importance and hopefulness of the statement which Mr. Gibson made the other day is that, by suggesting new criteria of comparison, he has made it easier, to find a standard by which reduction m*ay be fixed while taking account of the different circumstances and the different needs of the Powers which are concerned. "But Mr. Gibson made a second, and in its way equally remarkable contribution to this problem. Only yesterday he turned from naval armaments to land armaments. Again observe how simils.r the standpoint and outlook of the United States are to that of our own country. “Mr. Gibson said, speaking on the question of trained reserves, that the Government of the United States would have desired that those trained reserves should he included in any scheme for limitation and reduction. But recognising that the United States, which like this country maintains but a very small army, scarcely more than a police force equivalent to the duties which it has to discharge, realising that countries so situated could not dictate to the great military nations of the Continent with their different systems and different traditions, Mr. Gibson said that, while that was the desire of the United States, they would not insist upon it, in deference to the feelings and traditions of the other countries, in the hope that by yielding to their view those other countries would be led to make a great step forward in the direction in which they all desire to move. “I call your attention to that because only last summer his Majesty’s

Government and your humble servant were the victims, or objects at any rate, of unmeasured denunciation by both the parties in the State, because we had said and done exactly what Mr. Gibson said and did yesterday at Geneva. We were told that we had made disarmament impossible. We were told that, worse than that, we had definitely separated ourselves from the United States, and created a real divergence between their policy and ouns. Now we see that, moved by the same desire to make progress, to find lines upon which progress may he made, Mr. Gibson makes the declaration at Geneva for which we were denounced when we made it a year ago. “I do not wish to pretend that all the difficulties are over. We have still a long way to go; we have many obstacles to overcome; but I hold the American action at Geneva in these last days as a hopeful sign of ultimate success, and as having made a most valuable contribution to the cause of disarmament and peace.”