Edifice of Peace

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 877, 22 January 1930, Page 9

Edifice of Peace

KING’S APPEAL TO WORLD NATIONS

Momentous Conclave Opens

EFFORTS FOR UNIVERSAL DISARMAMENT

IMPRESSIVE scenes of dignity, and expressions of international sincerity, marked the opening in London of the Five-Power Naval Conference yesterday. The speech of King George, who opened the session in the Gallery of the House of Lords, was an appeal to all nations to build a lasting edifice of peace by working toward universal disarmament. Delegates assured the conference of their goodwill in these efforts.

United P.A.—By Telegraph—Copyright Reed. 11 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. There was a complete absence of pageantry when the conference began. The King, in civilian clothes and unaccompanied by any escort or guard of honour, drove to tile House of Lords through the foggy streets, in which the route was kept, not by troops, but by the Metropolitan police. There were large crowds, particularly at Buckingham Palace, and at Westminster, and His Majesty was loudly cheered as he passed on his way to perform the first public engagement he had undertaken since his grave illness. His Majesty was met at the entrance by the Prime Minister, and the Lord Chamberlain, who accompanied him to the Royal Gallery. No passage in the King’s wonderfully impressive speech at the opening of the conference stood out so clearly as a clarion call as his appeal for peace. Inspiring indeed was the fact that this world tocsin was his Majesty’s first public utterance since his illness. Everybody was delighted to see him looking so welt and to hear him singing out in a vigorous voice as he led up to the final hope that the nations would be successful In bringing the world relief from the burden of armaments. Every phase carried a ring of deep sincerity, earnestness and dignity. His Majesty began and ended his address in the most intense hush, which had a telling effect. London contrived to produce a blanket fog for the occasion, but nobody dared to suggest that it was a portent of impenetrability for the conference. Its only ill-ettect was to retard the King’s progress from Buckingham Palace and to delay the opening for a few minutes. Journalists had been seated since 10.45 a.m. enjoying the unending procession of diplomats, experts and Parliamentarians, until the whole place was a buzz of polyglot conversation. The King’s approach’ produced an unforgettable episode. The whole building was humming with conversation. There was no signal to herald his Majesty’s entrance, but everyone seemed simultaneously to sense the psychological moment. A hush came as if by magic, and it seemed as though the gallery was suddenly plunged into a huge vacuum. His Majesty slowly walked up the heavily-carpeted passageway to a raised dais, and bowed to the delegates on both sides before taking his position in front of the golden microphone. It was only a five-minute speech, atfer which the King, seated on a golden throne, followed with interest the French interpretation of his speech. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald followed with a 16-minute written speech. The other delegates spoke, and a French interpretation followed each. All were without applause. The only interruption was constant going and coming of journalists, who were rushing messages to every quarter of the globe. Mr. .T. E. Fenton, Australia, played his role excellently, as did Mr. T. M, Wilford. New Zealand. They, like all the others, had their own microphones.

THE ROYAL WELCOME

WORK FOR REDUCED ARMS KING EMPHASISES DIFFICULTIES Reed. 10 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. His Majesty King George, in his speech at the opening of the conference, said:—“lt is with sincere satisfaction that I am present to welcome the delegates of the five principal naval Powers assembled, with the object of eliminating the evil results of wasteful competition in naval armaments. “Every nation represented here is proud of its navy, and proud of that navy’s past achievements and inspiring traditions. It is not the fault of these traditions, nor of our navies, if competition in naval construction, due to the supposed necessities of policy, has led to a feeling of insecurity between nations—even to the risk of war. “Since the Great War all peoples have been determined that human statecraft shall leave nothing undone to prevent a repetition of that grim, immense tragedy in the edifice of peace which we are seeking to build. One of its most important columns is the agreement between maritime unions on the limitation of naval strength and reduction to a point consistent with national security. “The practical application of the principle of a reduction in naval armaments has in the past proved a matter of supreme difficulty. A great success was achieved in the conclusions of the Washington Treaty in 1922, which imposed certain limitations on the construction of capital ships and aircraft-carriers. But hitherto all efforts to advance beyond that point have failed.” OBSTACLES TO SECURITY "I believe that you, to whom your Governments have entrusted the mission of continuing the task begun at Washington, are animated with singleminded intentions of working, not with any selfish and exclusively nationalistic purpose, but with a noble inspiration and resolve, to remove, once and for all, this particular obstacle from the path of ordered civilised progress. “All the nations have varying schemes demanding special consideration. but if each is equally determined

upon mankind generally. I earnestly trust the results of this conference will lead to the immediate alleviation of the heavy burdens of armaments now weighing upon the people of the world and also by facilitating the future work of the League of Nations Preparatory Commission on Disarmament, and hasten the time when a general disarmament conference can deal with this problem in an even more comprehensive manner. “In this hope I shall follow your deliberations with the closest interest and attention.” FOUNDED ON GOODWILL DELEGATES’ OPENING SPEECHES POWERS READY TO REDUCE Reed. 11.15 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. After the King had completed his speech, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who was elected chairman of the conference, said: “It is peculiarly appropriate that this should be the occasion of his Majesty’s first public speech since his illness. I venture to offer him in your name our heartiest thanks and congratulations.” Continuing, Mr. MacDonald said: “Every country feels the burden of arms, dreads their competitive development, doubts the value of the security they give, and wants to escape their influence and power. “The difficulties in the way come mainly from one source, a lack of confidence. It is feared that some State may refuse to carry out its obligations, that the machinery of arbitration may break down somewhere or somehow, or a deadlock may arise, from which the only method of escape is to fight. This habit of mind, nurtured for many generations, controls our thinking and our action, and presents great militarism as a means of national security. “The whole world expects we shall deliberate and negotiate on the assumption that we mean to respect our signatures to the peace treaty, and prays that we will relieve it from its burdens and establish it more securely in the ways of peace. SECURITY WEAKENED “The world begs us to lift the problem from the narrower scrutiny of the technical to the broader Held of the creative Statesman. It demands an agreement to stop the recent naval competition.” After reviewing attempts to Achieve further national security and peace since the war, Mr. MacDonald added: “I take the practical view that political securities must determine the amount of military preparation, an excess of which is a wasteful use of national resources. It also weakens the political security. “No nation is free, except by international agreement, to pursue a policy of disarmament beyond rigidly-defined limits. Such an agreement should be reviewed at frequent intervals iu order that political movements toward security may be used progressively to reduce arms. I dare to affirm that in the naval programmes of the leading powers there is a margin between real security and the projected strengths, which the world expects this conference to eliminate. BRITAIN’S SINCERITY “Meanwhile the way of Britain is on ihq sea. Our Navy is no mere superfluity <o us. Britain can make a contribution to peace which will be one of deeds as well as words. We invite the naval powers to formulate an agreement for presentation to the Disarmament Commission.” Mr. J. E. Fenton, Australia, said: “We hold no sacrifice too great if it is directed at international peace.” Mr. Wakatsuki, Japan, said the Japa.nese people unanimously desired that peace should be lastingly established. “Japan is prepared in conjunction with the other Powers, to agree, not merely to limitation, but to actual reduction In strength,” he said. “Her only Cbncern is keeping her national security undisturbed by retaining a force adequate for defence.” PATH TO DISARMAMENT Signor Grandi said:—“The Italian delegation will be second to none in its efforts to secure the ends in view. Signor Mussolini has laid down a vast programme of work, requiring a long period of peace. The Fascist Government is always ready to accept proposals for disarmament.” Mr. H. L. Stimson, United States, said:—“lt. is important to emphasise that we do not regard this effort toward disarmament as final. Naval limitation is a continuous process, and disarmament is a goal that will be reached by successive steps and frequent revision. Our zeal in the general cause is unabated. We are ready to stay here until we can give the world an agreement to carry us on happily until the time when we meet again to reconsider the situation.” Mr. J. L. Ralston said Canada looked not wholly toward armaments for security, but toward the machinery which forestalled the necessity for force by disposing ol’ the questions of the basis of discussion. DOMINION’S VIEW M. Tardieu (France), Sir A. C. Chatterjee (India), and Professor T. A. Smiddy (Irish Free State) expressed their countries’ goodwill. Mr. T. M. Wilford (New Zealand) said:—“Though realising that trade routes and the ships carrying our produce are the veins and arteries of the Empire, and that our very existence may depend on the protection we can receive and not on the protection we can ourselves supply. New Zealand understands that compromise means concessions, and is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who seek to lay the foundations of peace, and who believe that

an appeal to reason should come before, and not after, a catastrophe.” The order of the speeches was: Mr. MacDonald, Mi-. Stimson, Mr. Fenton, Mr. Ralston. M. Tardieu, Sir C. A. Chatterjee, Professor Smiddy, Signor Grandi, Mr. Wakatsuki. Mr. Wilford and Mr. de Water. Mr. T. M. Wilford has not fully recovered from his accident, and used a walking-stick at the House of Lords ceremony. DOWN TO BUSINESS SERIOUS TALKS ON THURSDAY LONDON, Monday. The naval conference will begin its real business on Thursday with a general discussion on the naval needs of each country. It will postpone until later the question of aggregate tonnages and ratios. This completely reverses the methods adopted at Geneva and Washington. where the first aim was to seek a tonnage ratio. The French delegates particularly welcome the new procedure. SCOFFS AT POWERS VON TIRPITZ SAYS NATIONS CONCEAL TRUE COLOURS “BANDYING OF PHRASES” Reed. 9.5 a.m. BERLIN, Tuesday. The years have not changed, says Admiral Von Tirpitz, the apostle of irightfulness in submarine warfare. He scoffs at the Naval Conference, and declares none of the Powers has shown its true colours. “There is much bandying of phrases,” lie says, “but no regard for agreements. The navies retain the loopholes in pursuance of their own interests. “Germany is not interested in the conference. There is no reason, therefore, why Anglo-American naval hegemony is assured. But England renounced ‘Rule Britannia’ as the price of friendship with the United States. Thus the world war resulted in a victory for America over Britain as well as Germany. “Submarines are not abolished because no nation fighting for existence can renounce such a valuable weapon. Britain will not forfeit the right to blockade. British admirals think as I do.”