M. Briand and Germany
FNTIIUSIASM for disarmament—or, if the reader cares to have it so, for the limitation of arma- ments—has to be judged at present by the carefulness with which statesmen handle all the implications of Locarno and the Pact of Paris. It is obvious that the Locarno Treaties can never be of much value if they are not regarded as a new and better way to peace than was provided in the Treaty of Versailles. It is equally obvious that the Pact of Paris will mean nothing unless there is a sincere resolve to insist upon its essential sequels and corollaries. The Pact is only a moral declaration. Buttresses will have to be built round it in the form of a carefully-thought-out international organization of Arbitration and Conciliation Treaties and International Courts if it is to rest solidly and permanently on its foundations. But the immediate need is to display a clear recognition that Locarno and, above all, the Pact of Paris have brought a change into the world. The immediate need is the preservation of confidence. If this task be neglected or derided, men will cease to believe in the building long before it can take its final shape.
Judged by such a test of opportuneness and helpful- ness, M. Briand's speech to the Assembly at Geneva on Monday was lamentable. In Germany the speech was received as a wholly unexpected exhibition of mistrust and hostility. With almost one voice the German newspapers have been writing as though the cause of peace had been set back by a couple of years. No doubt it would be not merely possible but easy for M. Briand to defend his statements sentence by sentence, and to show that each of them was strictly accurate. No doubt it would be easy for him also to explain that hostility to Germany never entered into his mind, and that he was dealing with the situation merely as a realist who had the right, and perhaps even the duty, to speak to the German dele- gation at Geneva as man to man. Strait is the way, and narrow is the gate of peace. Why not say so ? Indeed, when M. Briand discovered what con- sternation his speech had produced in Germany, he summoned some of the correspondents at Geneva to explain to them that he had been entirely mis- understood.
Unfortunately, we are bound to apply our test of opportuneness. M. Briand never spoke thus unsym- pathetically and accusingly to Herr Stresemann, and it is a great pity that Herr Stresemann was not present at Geneva on Monday. He might have made all the difference. It seems that M. Briand took certain phrases in the speech last week of the new German Chancellor, Herr Willer, as applying to himself. He believed himself apparently to be charged with being " a man of words rather than of deeds," though we do not gather that Herr Mailer actually said that. It may be assumed, then, that M. Briand spoke with a certain indignation. Was Locarno not a deed ? And who had tended the policy which culminated at Locarno more anxiously and more studiously than himself ? Was not the Pact of Paris a deed ? And who but himself was the author of the proposal which culminated in Mr. Kellogg's Pact ? All this is true, and every friend of peace is grateful to M. Briand for what he has done. Yet once more we have to remember that the test of oppor- tuneness must be applied to every word and every movement that follows upon the things so far accomplished. M. Briand reminded the Germans that, although they talked of their disarmament, this compulsory disarma- ment was only two years old. Is not that old enough, we are inclined to ask, when we contemplate the voluntary disarmament schemes all over the world which have not yet been born ? M. Briand went on to say that Germany's army of 100,000 was far stronger than its mere numbers made it appear, because it consisted of well trained officers and non-commissioned officers who could instantly spring to the command of a multitude of troops. And what about this larger army ? Were not young Germans, though they were not technically soldiers, being trained so that they might be quickly turned into efficient soldiers ? And then there were the German industries. Could not these be adapted to military purposes with lightning speed ? And those great merchant ships which Germany was build- ing. Were they, too, not capable of aggression if required ?
All we can say is, that if such arguments are to be used, every industry in every country, the physical training of normal young men everywhere, every attempt to win trade and to carry passengers on the seas against competition, must be regarded as a sinister threat against the peace.
Germany might reply to M. Briand in his own strain, and use every present fact for the purpose of making the remotest possibilities appear as probabilities if she had the will to do so. We can only hope that she will have the will to refrain. She might point out, for instance, that France, being in a position for the first time to place German reparation payments in her budget, has allotted £1,600,000 for the chain of fortresses which is to run along the whole of her Eastern frontier. The cost of this scheme is estimated at 150,000,000. Germany might say—though she would be wrong if she did— that M. Briand trusts, after all, for security entirely to this steel wall. But that is the mischief of such a speech as M. Briand's—it lessens security for everybody. Suppose that no arrangement is come to for withdrawing the occupying French, Belgian and British troops from the Rhineland till the Treaty date of 1985. What will French security be worth then—worth under the con- ditions of tension which the continued occupation of the Rhineland implies ? Surely the true policy of France is to cultivate such relations with Germany now as will make of her a friendly neighbour instead of an aggrieved acquaintance awaiting her opportunity.
The reports of the last few days suggest that Germany may, after all, agree to give France some quid pro quo for an earlier withdrawal from the Rhineland. The bargain chiefly discussed at the moment is the proposed " mobilization " of the German railway bonds. It seems to be forgotten that, while there is nothing in the Treaty which justifies France in bargaining with Germany about withdrawal, there are words in the Treaty which definitely justify Germany in- appealing for withdrawal now without any special payment. These words are that, if before the fifteen years of occupation proposed in the Treaty as the normal course are completed, Germany " has complied with all the undertakings resulting from the Treaty, the occupying forces will be withdrawn immediately." Immediate withdrawal is, indeed, the solution 'which alone satisfies all the conditions of common sense and honour.
Previous page
