The League of Nations

Slow . Progress with Disarmament

WHEN at the conclusion of the League of Nations Disarma- ment Commission's sittings last Saturday, M. Litvinoff expressed gratitude to the League Secretariat for its admirable work, Lord Cushendun observed that at least one point had emerged on which he found himself in unity with the Soviet delegate. That, unfortunately, is, a fairly accurate comment on the Commission's work. Its session has been singularly barren and no one can seriously contend that results of any substantial value have been achieved.

That, however, will cause little surprise, and therefore little disappointment, to anyone who realized the conditions under which the Commission met. Many of the best observers, indeed, were in favour of postponing the meeting altogether, for, held under the shadow of impending elections in France, the meeting could obviously lead to no tangible result. It is the incoming, not the outgoing, administration in France that must commit itself--if any administration will—on disarma- ment.

But a general election is impending in Germany also, and that told as much against postponement as the French elec- tions told for it. Germany has an unchallenged right under the Peace Treaties to demand serious progress in the direction of reduction of armaments. Her Government was bound to show its people that it had done everything possibleto stimulate the League to effective action and her delegate on the Disarma- ment Commission was bound to resist to the death a post- ponement which might be interpreted as irresolution.

There was a second consideration of some weight. M. Litvinoff, the Soviet delegate, had put forward in December a universal disarmament scheme of the most drastic description. For the League to have refused to discuss it would have opened the gates to a flood of Soviet propaganda. Postponement in this connexion would have had the same effect as refusal, so that on Russia's account, as well as Germany's, it was felt that the meeting of the Commission must take place. But to reach that conclusion did not mean removing the obstacles to effective action. It was significant that the French prota- gonist, M. Paul Boncour, did not even attend. He was detained in his constituency, and his place was taken by Count Clauzel, a diplomatic official unable to commit his Government definitely to anything—except rejection of the Soviet plan.

Under these circumstances the expected happened. The Commission did the right thing in spending something like a week in serious consideration of M. Litvinoff's proposals, which, apart from some tepid approval from Count Bernstorff, the German delegate, who is too shrewd a diplomatist to put his money on anything impracticable, and the same from the Turkish Foreign Minister, a newcomer to the Commission, met with no support in any quarter. Lord Cushendun made the principal destructive speech. It was valuable in that it was reasoned, though its tone was in places unnecessarily polemic. When you are out to kill, it is often diplomatic to do it kindly Mr. Hugh Gibson, the American delegate, was more severe still. Possibly he feared that some parallel might be drawn—as it obviously might—between American proposals for the outlawry of war and Russian proposals for the outlawry of armaments.

At all events the Russian plan went by the board. That cannot have astonished M. Litvinoff, who adapted himself promptly to the new situation, producing from his capacious sleeve a brand new plan, not for immediate disarmament, but for gradual, involving, to begin with, a reduction of the largest armies by 50 per cent., of the next category by 33, of the next by 25, and in the case of the lowest category of all (States disarmed after the War) determination of the standard by a disarmament conference. The proposal came far too late to be discussed on the spot, but it remains on the agenda to be considered with the Disarmament Commission's own draft convention next time.

When that next time will be no one knows. The real trouble about the present meeting is that the States which should have smoothed the way for it did nothing at all. The Commission at its meeting a year ago produced a draft con-

vention for submission to a coming Disarmament Conference. It was given what is called a first reading, but on several vital

points agreement still remained to be reached and, that was

only likely to happen if the principal exponents of opposing views, Britain on the one hand and France on the other, got together in the interval and endeavoured to reach some accord.

That was in March and April of last year. So far as is known; no endeavour of any kind was made till the present sitting of the Commission had actually begun or was just beginning.

It was only, indeed, in the last three days of the sittings that the French delegate, corroborated later by. Lord Cushendun;

mentioned that important conversations between certain leading Powers on the Commission were in progress behind the scenes. The Powers in question are apparently Great Britain and France, and the principal subjects are presumably the questions of whether navies are to be measured by total tonnage or by separate categories and whether account is to be taken of trained reserves in the measurement of armies. If these conversations prove fruitful, the next meeting of the Commission will open with far better omens.

Lord Cushendun's Note to the Washington Naval Powers stands quite apart from this, and has indeed no formal con- nexion with the Disarmament Commission's work, the British delegate having merely been instructed to take advantage of the presence of delegates from the United States, Japan; France and Italy on the occasion of a disarmament discussion to renew the proposals made to the two former States during the Three Power Conference last June for an extension of the life of capital. ships (from twenty to twenty-six years) and a reduction in the maximum size of such ships and their guns. This is, of course, only asking America to discuss to-day what America refused to discuss last June, but there may be private reasons for supposing that the atmosphere is more favourable now and, in any case, the move has its strategic value in emphasizing the genuineness of British desires for some naval reduction.

On the other hand, it is only fair to recognize the existence; if not the validity, of the American argument that whereas the present maximum tonnage of capital ships is 35,000, Great Britain, and Great Britain alone, possesses one vessel of 42,000, the ' Hood,' and Great Britain, and Great Britain alone, owing to a special arrangement made at Washington, possesses two battle cruisers, the ' Nelson' and the ' Rodney,' some years later in type than any in the fleets of America or Japan.

That advantage would, of course, be perpetuated by the adoption of a proposal which postpones the building of any new capital ships by another six years and provides that when they are built they shall be of 30,000, not 35,000 tons.

But there is no insuperable obstacle in these considerations. The atmosphere happily is improving. Great Britain has dropped three cruisers altogether. America has cut down her construction programme by more than half. The Kellogg Note, advocating the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, is under serious consideration. When the League's Disarmament Commission next assembles, the going may be much smoother. On the whole, it was probably wise to fix no date for the next meeting, though this further vague- ness gave Germany legitimate ground for complaint.

YOUR GENEVA CORRESPONDENT.