Disarmament and Public Opinion
THE most noticeable thing in Mr. Henderson's speech about disarmament at the Albert Hall, on Monday, was his insistence upon the importance of public opinion. " As an old political hand I say that the Governments will do what the people want. If the people want dis- armament they can have it. If they will exert their will they can compel results."
That is demonstrably true. Every person with a memory can recall matters, great and small, upon which the Government of the day, no matter what its political complexion may have been, gave way to a public opinion so strong and widespread that it could not be mistaken. Sometimes the Government yielded with a good grace, being secretly glad of the excuse which was thrown at it, and sometimes it yielded with a bad grace ; but at all events it yielded. Here is a simple sequence of cause and effect which can be reproduced indefinitely. There is a year to run before the representatives of the civilized nations will meet in the Disarmament Conference—the first Conference of this kind ever held. No more important duty lies upon thinking people who understand what is at stake than to use this year in helping to work up an irresistible public opinion in favour of disarmament. Mr. Henderson did not exaggerate when he said that the cause of disarmament goes to the root of all that makes human life respectable. "I ask you to think of this thing not in terms of law and economics but rather as the greatest of moral issues which our generation has to face."
It is well known that there are no such catastrophic failures as those which follow upon tremendous efforts to bring off a success. When it is found that all the energy has been wasted, all the confidence misplaced, there is a, strong reaction. In the backwash of the mighty retreating wave, hope, energy, faith, even principle, arc swept away ; and it may be a very long time indeed before it is possible for the supporters of the ideal to get their forces together again for another advance.
If the world should refuse to disarm in February, 1932, or should make a certain show of disarmament ridiculous by its inadequacy, there will be a return to the old arrangement of military groups and alliances and a Balance of Power. Instead of peace we shall have an armed truce, which is only a pretence of peace. The authority of the League will be diminished. Men will ask themselves once more whether it is safe to entrust their destinies to any international machinery of peace. The whole nature of security will be canvassed again and there will be, at least superficially, a good pretext for adopting the French rather than the British view of security. The argument will be that it has been proved after all that no writ can run which has not force behind it. Mistrust and fear, which are the motives of every material doctrine of security, will make themselves felt again. The nations will enter into another extravagant competition with the prospect that they will be either ruined or annihilated in another war.
There is still a year in which we can all make up our minds whether we mean to live sanely or insanely.
Surely the economic experience of the last War, quite apart from the terrible and humiliating record of human suffering and loss, ought to be enough to warn all rational nations against allowing themselves to drift on to another war. It is said that no nation is afraid of breaking a promise when there is no power of enforcement _ behind it, but are not memories of the ruin . of 191,4-1918 in themselves cautionary enough to be prohibitive 1' And even if they were not, is it really-too Utopian to assume that civilized men, in possession- of their senses;--will accept arbitration in place of trial by brute strength as in itself an invaluable convenience ?
It is said, again, that the risk of being caught defence. less by a wanton disturber of the public peace is too serious to be accepted. We do not deny that it is a risk ; but it is one of several risks which beset us in a world which is full of risks. Could there conceivably be a greater risk to any nation's welfare than a revival of the old cons. petition in armaments ? We think not. The great new fact which has been learned in our generation, and which should determine all our thinking about national defence, is that security by lavish expenditure upon armaments is no security at all.
No doubt, as the First Lord of the Admiralty said last Saturday, disarmament must be universal or there will be no safety. " You can go too quickly in this matter unless you can get other countries in Europe to go just as quickly. There is a steady decline in our own naval expenditure and a steady rise in that of every other nation. You begin to ask whether it is a sane policy." The answer to the doubt thus insinuated by Mr. Alexander is that since neither he nor anybody else outside a lunatic asylum would discourage disarmament provided that it was universal, the reason is all the greater for people all over the world to stir up in their own nations an invincible public opinion.
There is a vast amount of ground to be covered. We have never pretended to be satisfied with the Draft Convention which will be the foundation of the work of the Disarmament Conference. The only excuse for the Convention, with its very small measure of agreement, is that agreement of some sort is necessary if there is to be a Conference at all. We had eagerly hoped that it would be possible to get the nations to agree to direct limitation, but the argument prevailed that armaments can be manu- factured in parts and hidden away until the time comes for assembling them. It seems to us, however,. that when that argument is presented to Germany she cannot be blamed for her bitter smile. Germany points out that ever since the War she has been subject to direct limita- tion. She is for practical purposes a disarmed nation. She is accused, of course, of having trained many men and of having produced much material which if it is not at the moment technically material of war is capable of quick adaptation for effective use in war. There may be some- thing in all this, but the fact remains that Germany is substantially disarmed.
The Peace Treaty provided that she was to be disarmed on the understanding that the Allies would proceed voluntarily to disarm themselves. What kind of credit can the Allies expect to retain if they regard such a pledge as something that can be ignored? To do them justice we do not imagine that France and Italy would conceive it possible that they could go on permanently spending much money on armaments while Germany remained disarmed. In that event the solution would be that Germany would spring to life again as a warlike nation, not because she wished to be so but because she felt that the necessity had been imposed upon her.
In our opinion the Budgetary supervision of military expenditure, which has been adopted, is not .a satisfactory alternative, to direct limitation. Nevertheless, the Draft Convention, a meagre and shadowy thing though it is, is capable of an immense expansion. The day may yet be won. The will to remain sane may yet conquer the tendency to insanity. Everything depends upon, the organization of a strong public opinion which the Conference will not care or dare to disobey.
Previous page
