16 JANUARY 1932, Page 6

Germany and Disarmament

By Dlr. OTTO HOETZSCH [Dr. Hoetzseh, who is Professor of History in the University of Berlin and a prominent figure in the German National Party, was a member of the Reichstag from 1920 to 19801 THE Disarmament Conference will probably assemble on February 2nd. On general principles Germany is against a postponement, as conditions now stand, because a delay will serve no purpose and make the situation no better. The argument that the world is not yet ready for a successful conference of this kind is ren- dered untenable by the counter-consideration that the problem of reparations and debt negotiations, in view of the decision of the United States of America, certainly cannot be separated in the last analysis from the disarma- ment negotiations and conclusions.

Germany expects that the promises given to her in the preamble of Section 5 of the Treaty of Versailles and in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations will now be kept. The Treaty of Versailles, it will be recalled, includes the phrase : In order to render possible the initia- tion of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations ; while Article 8 of the Covenant of the League imposes upon League members the obligation of "the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety." The question of disarmament, therefore, cannot be considered to be the one-sided obligation of Germany. Germany has not accepted her own disarma- ment unconditionally ; it was not forced upon her by the other side without stipulated mutual obligations. Ger- many's disarmament is bound up with the German claim to the fulfilment of the obligation assumed by the victors—namely, to bring about a general disarmament.

It must further be made clear that disarmament pro- perly means the complete abolition of armaments. But the word has never had this absolute meaning in the diplomatic negotiations and documents relating to dis- armament. President Wilson gave it its broadest conno- tation in the fourth of his Fourteen Points, in which he suggested that for the exchange of appropriate guarantees " armaments be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety." That means the reduction of armaments to police needs. In three specific places disarmament is spoken of as the limitation of armaments, as the reduction of armaments, and as the decrease of armaments, but not as the complete abolition of armaments.

Germany has fulfilled her obligations arising from this multilateral pact, to which the several nations are sig- natories. But the other parties to this international contract have not performed their legal duties. The infor- mation communicated to the League of Nations con- cerning the present status of armaments, and published by the secretariat, proves rather that there has not been disarmament. Quite the contrary ; the one-sided security politics of the armed and powerful states under the leadership of France has led to preparedness approach- ing maximum standards.

This contradiction between the written promise and the course of action has become intolerable for Germany. It has also become unbearable for Europe, because within this very situation lies the danger of the destruction of the League of Nations and the peril of a new war. The thesis which Germany is advocating, on the other hand, tends to promote the peace of Europe as a whole. It is expressed in the demand for equal rights, the removal of unequal privileges, or in the formula worked out in Geneva and so well summarized in French as the " nivelle- ment des armaments." Disarmament must be brought about for all states on the basis of the same principles and by means of the same methods. One state should not be permitted to do a thing which has been forbidden to another. The parties in Germany are every day becoming more united in this demand for equality of rights.

In regard to the preparedness agreements, this thesis means that Germany is not to be forbidden what is per- mitted to the other nations, and that Germany has the same claim to national security as France or any other state. It means further that the one-sided performance of the Treaty of Versailles must be superseded by 4 s3-stem of armaments which gives to Germany the same rights and opportunities which are conferred upon the other powers agreeing to the convention.

This demand for equality is only a part of the whole interrelated and complex question of security, disarma- ment, and the sphere of jurisdiction of courts of arbitra- tion, of the great functional unity of States toward which the labours for the organization of peace and for international co-operation have been directed, and for the realization of which the League of Nations has been established. The League of Nations wants to put an end to war. This is only possible when it finds out; for all conflicts which have been the causes of war, thci possibility of looking forward to a peaceful consideration and solution. It is, to be sure, an enormous task to establish a procedure which will make war an outlaw and which will at the same time be applicable to all situations and conflicts. It would be desirable to take, instead of that, the case of war and the principle of mili- tary sanction as the final problem. Such a Method of approach to the great problems of nations may be compared with the technique of a carpenter who aspires to build a roof before he has constructed the walls of the house which it is to cover. War is not averted by preparing for war in order to ward off war, but rathe by removing its fundamental causes. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that it is utterly impossible to consider war merely as a self-contained entity and to begin with guarantees and military sanctions as a point of departure. It must be repeated that peace is by no means insured by preparations to fight against war with the very weapon of war. The problem is much more complicated ; peace can result only from the removal of the fundamental causes of war.

A system of guarantees and sanctions can prove practical only after an agreement on the size of arma_. ments has been made. Divested of such precedent conditions, the League of Nations agreements would never lead to co-operative international action against a strongly-armed state, but would result in actions of the League, supported by the public force of the armed states against the weaker states.

Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations contains a means for the peaceful revision of treaties according to juristic form and procedure. The language of this section includes the term all kinds of national conflicts. The same phrase reappears similarly in Article 2 of the Kellogg Pact. The meaning is inclusive surely of conflicts which arise from the wording of the treaties of peace.

These ideas summarize Germany's attitude. It is clear to us that our hopes cannot be achieved with one gesture, from a single point of departure, and as the result of one conference. The February Conference can only make a beginning. The work of disarmament must go forward step by step in the same manner in which all progress in history has taken place. But the point of departure must be taken from the principles here described. The work of the Disarmament Conference will be rendered More difficult, perhaps its successful completion made impossible, if the draft of the Disarmaments Convention is considered in Geneva as unalterable. The German delegation will propose then again all our suggestions which have been objected to at the " Preparatory Conference." The draft of the Disarmaments Convention is not for Germany a real solution of the problem. Dr. Curtius said this on January 20th, 1931, in the Council of the League of Nations. Above all, Article 53 contradicts the principle of equality, which Germany makes basic in its thesis and the fundamental acceptance of which is expected by the Disarmaments Conference.

The ideas with which the German Government will come to the Conference have often been described. They are as follows : We expect a just solution of all factors involved in the problem of armaments, a sensible reduction of armaments, as Dr. Bruning has said, and further steps towards disarmament by stages. But this statement does not affect the force which the individual State needs for its particular necessities of defence. The line is sharply drawn : equal rights, equality of methods in disarmament and a satisfactory result of the Conference. The important point is that Germany expects the Disarmament Conference to recognize the legal equality to which the others arc tied because of the recognized definitions of international law. Germany demands and asks that this principle be acted upon. It is logical, and juristically quite clear, that when the other party to a contract does not act according to the terms of the law, Germany also as a contractual party may be discharged from her obligations. Germany cannot endure being forced to lie defenceless in the middle of Europe, surrounded by armed states whose prepara- tions for war are always growing stronger. For this reason a unity of opinion exists in the bruised Germany of to-day, against which no Government can act.

Let us not speak about the consequences which would ensue- if the Disarmament Conference should fail. The responsibility of all states which take part in it is enormously great. and that of France towers above the rest. As a member of the German delegation I took part in the disarmament conference which Lord Cecil had called in Paris, and also in the conference at the Trocadero. If the attitude of the whole of Franee should be judged from that gathering, the prospect is very serious and gloomy.

Germany expects that the Disarmament Conference, proceeding in the spirit of responsibility, will further the peace of Europe. I am certain that its delegation, to he led by Chancellor Bruning himself, will be animated by a deep sense of responsibility and by a conviction of the justice of the German position which I have set forth in this article. A conference pervaded by such a spirit will give us in actual practice the ideals of dis- armament for the realization of which the world has been waiting twelve years and more.