SCHEME TO DISARM

Taranaki Daily News, 14 November 1921, Page 5

SCHEME TO DISARM

PROPOSALS BROUGHT DOWN

DRAMATIC SURPRISE

“WE WANT NO WAR”

What are described as profoundly dramatic proposals for partial disarmament of Britain, the United States and Japan marked the opening of the great conference of nations at Washington on Saturday. It was expected that the first day’s sitting would, be devoted to formal business, but immediately following the opening the United States produced her proposals for the limitation of ‘ armament.

“We want less armament and no war,” declared President Harding in the course of a striking appeal for world peace from a war-wearied globe. It was a dramatic sentence in an historic speech and the audience of two spmng to their feet, cheering and applauding. When the disarmament proposals were announced there was another outburst of. enthusiasm.

The surprise of the proposals has not allowed opinion to crystallise, but it is considered the American statesmen were hardly likely to commit themselves so far unless they had some guarantee of success.

; THE OPENING. , WONDERFUL ENTHUSIASM. DELEGATES STAND AND CHEER. A MEMORABLE SCENE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Nov. 13, 5.5 p.m. Washington. Nov. 12. Profoundly dramatic proposals made by Mr. C. E. Hughes (Secretary of State for the United States) came as a climax to a day full of interest and emotion marking the opening of the Washington Conference. To the casual observer the assemblage in the Centennial Memorial Hall had little to distinguish it from an ordinary diplomatic gathering, except, perhaps, the presence of Japanese, Chinese and Indian delegates. Naval and military uniforms mingled with the frock coats of statesmen, and women were present in fair proportion. Behind all was that wistful hope for peace that breathed through every line of the opening prayer that asked for Divine blessing on the proceedings. There was an audible catch in the breath when President Harding was speaking. He solemnly voiced the hopes and aspirations of the United States in ringing words. “We want less armament and no war,” he said. Then for the first time the decorous behaviour of the assemblage broke bounds, and the audience, numbering two thousand, sprang to their feet, cheering and applauding, while President Harding stood smiling. When Mr. Hughes announced that the United States was willing to scrap practically all its 1916 programme the storm broke forth anew. Once more the audience rose, and once more those feelings that go far deeper than talk, agreement or politicians’ plans surged to the surface. THE DELEGATES. • It is interesting to note how the delegates are placed at the tables, which are arranged in a square. At the top sat Mr. Hughes, with Senators Lodge. Root and Underwood (United States) at the right hand, with Mr. A. J Balfour, Lord Lee and Sir Auckland Geddes (Great Britain) on the left. M. Briand (France) sat at the top of the right side table, with M. Viviani and other French delegates next to him. Prince Tokogawa and the Japanese were at the left-side table, Sir Robert Borden (Canada) at the top, Mr. G. F. Pearce (Australia) next, and Sir John Salmond (New Zealand) and Mr. Sastri (India t and the Italians, while along the bottom table were ranged representatives of China, Portugal, Holland and Belgium. Behind this square, so fateful in the history of the world, sat members of the naval, military and technical staffs, including Marshal Foch, General Pershing. Lord Beatty and numbers of others. The Press occupied ' places in the balcony, while facing the chairman were members of the United States Congress. t The proceedings were not marked by ; any special formalities. The delegates walked to their places almost unnoticed, except Mr. Hughes, who was applauded when he was taking his seat. There was a hush, followed by cheers, when President ' Harding made his entrance. His speech ! followed immediately after a short prayer, I and at its conclusion he left the audience standing and again cheering for several j minutes. Then Mr. Balfour, who was most en- ' thusiasticaliy received, as a tribute of the genuine admiration and affection he holds in the esteem of the American people, proposed Mr. Hughes as chairman, eloquerltly dwelling on his special qualifications for the post. He referred to the inestimable service the United States had done to the world in calling the conference, and he hoped the conference would accept the motto of the President—“ Simplicity, honesty and honor”. TIME FOR ACTION. Mr. Hughes delivered an impressive speech. He said: “I am unable to find sufficient reason for adopting the extreme view that the consideration of armaments , should await the discussion of Far Eastern questions, or whether it should be post- ' poned until an agreement regarding the limitation of armaments is reached. It may be found entirely practicable, by distributing the work among designated committees, to make progress to the ends sought without either subject being treated as a hindrance to the proper consideration of the other. We cannot fail to recognise the extraordinary opportunity now presented for the limitation of armament. I We not only have the lessons of the past to guide us—not only do we have the reaction from the disillusioning experience of war—but we must meet the challenge of imperative economic demands. What was formerly convenient or highly desirable is now a matter of vital necessity, and the time has come, not for general resolutions i

' or mutual advice, but for action. “It is a vital part of the plan for the limitation of armaments that there should be a naval holiday—that there should be no further construction of capital ships for at least a decade. I am happy to say I am at liberty to go beyond these general propositions, and on behalf of the American delegation, acting under President Harding’s instructions to admit a concrete proposition as on the order paper.” After the election of Mr. Garrett as secretary, Mr. Hughes proposed that the members of the delegation form two committees—one to consider disarmament, and one Far Eastern affairs. Then followed a remarkable scene. Mr. Hughes was proceeding to wind up the session in a formal way when from the Congress gallery came insistent calls for M. Briand (Premier of France) ; in fact, Congress, in this matter, to£k the meeting out of Mr. Hughes’ hands. M. Briand spoke briefly, but emotionally. It was notable that he was the only delegate to use the French language. France, he said, was ready to go to the end with her great Allies. She had never been a country of greed and conquest, and if the necessary precautions were taken for her life and safety she would be the first to cry “Down arms 1”. CALL TO MANKIND. PRESIDENT HARDING’S SPEECH. A WAR-WEARIED WORLD. THE BURDEN OF ARMAMENT. Received Nov. 13, 5.5 p.m. Washington, Nov. 12. President Harding, in his speech at the opening of the Armament Conference, said: “It is a great privilege to bid delegates a cordial welcome to the capital of the United States. It is not possible to overappraise the importance of such a conference, whose conclusions will have a influence on all human progress ana on the fortunes of the work!, f’he conference is an earnest of the awakened conscience of twentieth century civilisation. “It is not a convention of remorse or sorrow, nor of victors to determine the terms of settlement, nor a council of nations seeking to re-make humankind. Rather it is the coming together of men from all parts of the earth to apply the better attributes of mankind to minimise the faults of international relationship. The call to the conference is one from a war-wearied world, hungering and thirsting for the better relationship of humanity, crying for relief and seeking an assurance of lasting peace.” The President asked for the banishment of all misunderstanding, and added: “Our inherited rights are from God, and the tragedies of the world originate in their attempted denial. The world to-day is infringing their enjoyment by arming to defend or to deny them, when simple sanity calls for their recognition .through a common understanding. Out of the cataclysm of war came new fellowships, new convictions and new understandings, and it is ours to make the most of them. *

“The world is staggering with debt, and must have the burden lifted. Contemplating the measureless cost of war and continuing the burden of armament, all thoughtful peoples wish a real limitation of armament, and would like war to be outlawed. In their most sober reflection the world’s hundreds of millions, who pay in peace and die in war, wish their statesmen would turn expenditure for destruction into means of construction; they aim at a higher state for those who live and follow after. Besides the overpowering burden on. the people, wars have grown progressively cruel and destructive, and to reverse the order would more become our boasted civilisation.

“The United States welcomes the delegates unselfishly, and invites and offers cooperation. The world demands sober contemplation of the existing order, and realisation that there can be no cure without sacrifice by all. I do not mean surrendered rights, or narrowed freedom, or denied aspirations, or ignored national necessities. No pride need be humbled, and no nationality submerged; but 1 would have a mergence of minds, committing all of us to less preparation for war and more enjoyment of fortune and peace. Nothing can be accomplished in disregard of national apprehensions; rather we should act together to remove the causes of these apprehensions. This will not be done by intrigue. Greater assurance will be found in exchanges, simple honesty and directness, among men resolved to accomplish, as becomes leaders among nations. If finer sentiments were not urging us, the cold, hard facts of excessive cost, and the

eloquence of economics, would urge us to reduce armaments. “The world has swung along through the ages unheeding the call to mitigate the blight of armament competition, but. it was never before so tragically brought to a realisation of the utter futility of it. Passions sway when reason, consciousness and fellowship point a nobler way. The United States’ hundred million people frankly want less armament and no war. We harbor no unworthy designs, and accord the world the same good intent. I welcome you in high faith that we have met for the service of mankind, and that in all simplicity, all honesty and all honor there may be written here an avowal that the world’s conscience has been refined by the consuming fires of war, and made sensitive by the anxious aftermath. I hope for an understanding which will emphasise a guarantee of peace and commitments to less burdens and better order, which will tranquilise the world.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. THE AUSTRALASIANS. CONFER WITH BRITISH DELEGATES. GUARANTEE OF PACIFIC SECURITY. Received Nov. 13, 5.5 p.m. New York, Nov. 11. The Australian Press Association’s Washington . correspondent states t/hat Mr, G. F. Pearce (Australia) and Sir John Salmond (New Zealand) attended the unknown warrior’s burial and occupied one of the principal boxes with other members of the British delegation. The Australasians paid a tribute to the excellence of the arrangements and the impressiveness and solemnity of the ceremony. Mr. Pearce and Sir John Salmond met other members of the British delegation at an Embassy dinner for the purpose of enabling the various sections to compare notes. They found that general agreement exists regarding what the Empire Dominions want and how to get it. It can be confidently stated that the whole of the British delegation’s attitude is satisfactory from the Australasian standpoint. Mr. Pearce confesses himself more hopeful of success after this discussion than before. He believes there is every prospect of obtaining an adequate guarantee of national security for Australia and the Pacific, thereby enabling Australia to proceed in a more moderate way in defence expenditure than would otherwise be possible. Calls by Mr. Pearce and Sir John Salmond on the State Department resulted in an exchange of views indicating that there is considerable harmony in the British and American standpoints.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

WILL JAPAN AGREE? AN AMBASSADOR’S OPINION. A HOPEFUL STATEMENT. Received Nov. 13, 5.5 p.m. London, Nov. 12. M. Hayashi (Japanese Ambassador), interviewed, said he J>elieved Japan would agree to America’s naval proposals. if America was pledged thereto. He added: “I don’t see why it should not be practically possible. There is no need for America and Japan to build capital ships, but if one is aggressive the other will have to build. Both are friendly now and no third Power is able to threaten the Pacific. I think the programme should be acceptable to all the great Powers.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. BERNARD SHAW’S VIEWS. SUSPICIONS OF THE MEETING. THE RIVALRY OF NATIONS. Received Nov. 12, 5.5 p.m. London, Nov. 11. Mr. G. Bernard' Shaw, writing in the Nation, predicts that the delegates at Washington who really matter want to confer in public. He adds: “We shall learn nothing about the conference from the conference itself. Its business is avowedly not disarmament, but the old task of arranging a balance of powef that shall be satisfactory to all parties, and no arrangement will be satisfactory to any of the parties except that it shall be stronger than all the rest. The conference will find itself pursuing a will o’ the wisp. The delegates will begin by sounding one another for alliances. California, Canada and Australia all want white continents. Lord Northcliffe, having made the surprising discovery that Australia is much larger than the Isle of Wight, has warned Australians that if white races do not people it the yellow people will. This point is not likely to be lost on Japan. The conference presents plenty of material for animated conversations on the back stairs, none of which will be fit for immediate publication. -Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

JAPAN AND DISARMAMENT. BIG PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN. Tokio, Nov. 11. On the eve of the opening of the Washington Conference a sudden billboard campaign has been inaugurated throughout the country in favor of disarmament. It is. the moet extensive propaganda ever undertaken. RIVAL CONFERENCE. SOVIET’S GENTLE REVENGE. Received Nov. 13, 5.5 p.m. Copenhagen, Nov. 12. Disgruntled at non-invitation to Washington, the Soviet is arranging a simultaneous conference at Irkutsk, and has invited representative people of China, Japan, Korea, Siam and India. The Chinese and Japanese delegates are already en route. MR. DE VALERA’S VIEWS. London, Nov. 10. The Dublin correspondent of the Daily Mail states that Mr. De Valera, replying to the American Press Agency’s request for a statement on disarmament, said nothing else but a real league of nations can stecure effective disarmament. At Paris the foumAtion of such a league was made impossible by the denial of the principle of national self-government by the victors of Europe. The whole world looks to America to set a standard. —United Service.