LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the H'eek" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym.—Ed. TILE SPECTATOR.'
THE ARMS TRAFFIC AND A WORLD POLICE
f To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Stn,—The debate on private trading in armaments leaves us in much the same position as before. Two points were not sufficiently emphasized :
(1) Munitions manufactured here and exported abroad, sooner or later may, and probably will, be used to kill our own people and destroy our own country, e.g., tanks to Russia, aeroplane engines to Germany and howitzers to Japan. It appears that free trade is now almost entirely restricted to armaments.
(2) Competition amongst the war traders, and the ram- ifications of their business disclosed before the Nye Com- mission, help to promote a new race in armaments, which is the unmistakable symptom, though not the cause, of a new war.
The evidence given before the Nye Commission also makes it clear that neither of these results will be eliminated simply by conferring upon governments a monopoly of arms-pro- duction. Therefore, the real problem is not the method of production but the purpose for which munitions are intended, and their ultimate destination.
Are .they to be employed solely for policing purposes, or for perpetuating the system of international duelling ? Unless we. are prepared to prohibit the export of weapons to other sovereign States, we can never be sure that they will not be turned against us. If, however, we do this, we cripple our manufacturing capacity which, in the existing anarchy, we are told, it is essential we should retain in order to. increase our own supplies in any emergency. Thus we move in a vicious circle. How can it be broken ? Only by substituting co-operative international armament for competitive national armaments. If the League is equipped with a police force, its armaments could be supplied by a number of licensed firms operating within the territories of the co-operating States. In return for long-term contracts covering munition supply, upkeep of specialized plant and skilled labour held in reserve for possible contingencies, these firms would undertake not to supply . munitions to anyone else. They would, therefore, be restricted to one customer, and the inducement to fish in troubled waters would . be removed. Further, the munitions they supplied for policing purposes- would never be used against their fellow-countrymen, unless the latter had launched an attack against one of their neighbours, and, consequently, was declared to be an aggressor by an impartial international authority, the League.
I imagine this is not likely to happen in our own ease because, at the moment, there is no one we want to attack. If our object is defence, isn't it saner to join our neighbours in . establishing the reign of law—a tribunal and police force—than tube dragged by the heels, as we were in 1914, into a new war ? Clca .1y, this is also the paramount interest of our armament industry. In the next war, munition factories will be amongst the first objects of a bombing attack. Therefore, the vital interest of armament manufacturers is to prevent war. This they-can only do by helping to abolish the ancient practice of international duelling and substituting the policing system in its place. They would then be able to secure long-term contracts with the international authority. Clearly, this would be a much less speculative but a much sounder business, for two reasons. First, they would obviously run far less risk of complete annihilation, and, secondly, the loss of orders to States outside the League would probably be more than compensated for by the annual amounts paid for a standard production, plus the maintenance of plant and staff to meet an emergency.
Armaments cannot be abolished. They must be produced by someone. Does it really very much matter by whom, so lung as their use is confined to policing purposes ? Let us by all means continue to expose the glaring abuses of the arma- ment industry and the part it plays in promoting mass murder. But, let us not forget that it is only an adjunct of the duelling system, and that so long as this system remains, so long win armament firms continue to trade, until they disappear with everything else in the final Winkle. Therefore, the first task is to alter the system, otherwise we shall be no better off whether armaments are produced by private firms or by governments.
Further, if the leaders of time armament industry understand their business, if they take a long view of the interests of their shareholders, they would co-operate to bring about this new development in international relationships. After all, they are men of practical common sense. We assume that they are patriotic and that they do not desire to see Europe in ruins or their own countrymen starving. They find themselves enmeshed in a system which compels them to sell their instru- ments of destruction to foreigners in order to make a profit, or sometimes even to make both ends meet. They also know that in the existing anarchy it is a gamble whether these instruments may not be used to kill their own countrymen. or even to destroy their own factories. Surely, the policing system offers a way of escape from this dilemma, which is consistent with their own interests and the highest patriotism. The armament industry is powerful. What earthly reason is there why it should not put its power behind international justice—a tribunal to'settle all disputes and a police force to maintain order—instead of trying to bolster up an obsolete regime of international anarchy which is bound sooner or later to bury them in its ruins?
It follows that the leaders of our armament industry might be well advised to explore the possibilities of such an arrange- ment. Why should they not conclude a deal with the mem- bers of the international authority ? Let them make a practi= cal proposition to the Council of the League. By doing so they would win the support of public opinion, instead of incurring its righteous indignation. They would establish their business on a moral and sound, instead of an immoral and unstable, foundation. They would have set an example to the politicians, instead of digging the grave of European civilization and, above all, they would deliver their fellow- countrymen from the menace of war, instead of plunging them over the abyss.—I am, Sir, yours, &c., DAVIES.
Previous page
