ONE THING AT A TIME.
IMPORTANT announcements have been made from Washington about the Disarmament Conference, and we record with genuine satisfaction that President Harding seems to be moving along lines that promise success. His principle is manifestly to make sure of accom- plishing something by not trying to accomplish too much. " One thing at a time " is his motto. We gather from American newspapers that those mentors of the President who want him to create a new Maven and a new earth in one magnificent gesture receive no encouragement at all. Mr. Harding has evidently been a careful student of the doings of the peacemakers at Paris. It is not only in his determination to limit in advance the ambitions of the Washington Conference that Mr. Harding shows his sagacity. He has evidently also come to the wise conclusion that if he is to make anything emerge from such a perilous abstract proposition as Dis- armament "—how old a subject it is and how littered its track is with shattered illusions l—he mast raise it clear above the partisanship of American domestic politics. For this reason he has been scrupulously careful, in nomi- nating American representatives for the Washington Con- ference, to give representation to the minority in the Senate. If Mr. Wilson had acted in this way in making his arrange- ments for the Paris Conference he probably would have avoided all opposition. But we do not wish to go back upon old history, and much less do we wish to appear to be taking sides in American politics or to suggest that Republicans are naturally wiser than Democrats. The lesson that Mr. Harding has digested is a common lesson. In the light of events a Democratic President would no doubt have acted on exactly the same principle. The only thing that matters is that Republicans and Democrats alike, without jealousy, bitterness, or suspicion, should join together to save the world not only from future wars but from the utter'', ruinous expense of providing against the possibility of future wars. Following the line of thought which we have indicated, Mr. Harding is further anxious that the Conference should not be overweighted by a large number of members any more than by a large number of subjects. He suggests that on the main question of disarming only the five Great Powers, America, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, should negotiate. And each of these five Powers would send only four delegates. In addition to these delegates strictly so called, each country may have any number of advisers. But the advisers would not in any way be allowed to turn the Conference into a multitude or its discussions into a babel of tongues. It may be said that it is impossible to discuss any problem which necessarily concerns itself with the situation in the Far East without calling in countries which have interests there though they do not happen to be among the five Great Powers. This is true, and accord- ingly it has been arranged to hear delegates from China, Holland, and Belgium on any purely Far Eastern question. The names of the distinguished Americans who have been asked to serve on the Conference make an imposing and reassuring list—Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State, who is one of the most able and upright men in American politics, and who more than once was regarded as a possible Presi- dent ; Mr. Root, the greatest jurist in America ; Mr. Lodge, one of the greatest authorities on foreign affairs in the Senate ; and Mr. Underwood, the well-known leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate. It is suggested that if Mr. Underwood should feel it impossible to accept the invitation, on the ground that he cannot leave his duties in the Senate, his place might be taken by Mr. Davis, who succeeded Mr. Page as American Ambassador in London. We desire to express our opinion very plainly that the choice of perhaps the most able group of men that America could put forward for the Conference is in itself both an absolute earnest of good faith and a challenge to us to act similarly. We ought to send of our very best. We ought to prove, what after all is the simple fact, that nothing in the whole domain of international affairs is for us comparable in importance with this question of disarmament. We should be bitterly disappointed—we shall have to begin to take a gloomy view of the future which at present we refuse to do—if the Washington Con- ference ended in a failure. But we can almost make sure of its success if only we set to work to organize victory for a great cause.
Our readers know that in our opinion the first thing we should have done by way of preparation was to denounce the Japanese Treaty, not because we had any kind of quarrel with Japan—far from it—but because we ought to have made it our business to go into the Conference with our hands quite untied and without any trace of prejudice. An American visitor t,p London was questioning us a few days ago as to the sincerity of Englishmen about the Washington Conference. We assured him that every serious person here desired the Conference to be a success. The American immediately brought up the Japanese Alliance. Why had Mr. Lloyd George clung to it ? Did he not see that Americans had their suspicions aroused when he informed them that our representatives would arrive in Washington tied to Japan ? We assured our American visitor that Mr. Lloyd George was deeply com- mitted to the ideal of disarmament, and that in all his words and thoughts he was quite in earnest about it. We for our part had considered that he had made a blunder about Japan, but we were none the less aware that his mistake was that of a man who was hoping for too much. He hoped at one and the same time not to give offence to Japan and to satisfy America of his complete disinte- restedness. The continued affiance with Japan therefore meant no abatement whatever of the wish of the British Government for a thorough and epoch-making agreement at Washington. The American listened patiently, and ,then replied, " You might sell that argument in Maine, but I don't think you could sell it much farther West, and I'm sure you couldn't sell it at all in the Far West."
That is the trouble. We have to deal with popular ;misunderstandings—or ignorance, if one chooses so to call :it—on the other side of the Atlantic. We still hope against hope that the Government will denounce the Treaty, for though when it had been denounced it would still have another year to run, a Treaty which is lapsing is almost the same thing as a Treaty ended. But on the assumption that the Government will not change their mind, what else can we do to make a good impression in America Z We feel very strongly indeed that the Prime Minister ought to go himself. We do not say that he need necessarily be one of the regular representatives. He might go to Wash- ington with the delegates for a few days and play a ceremonial part, which, however, would be very important. The simple truth is that, as things have been managed, the situation will be very difficult to explain to the average American. Nobody could make this explanation so happily or with so good a prospect of conveying con- viction to his hearers and his readers as Mr. Lloyd George himself.
The American newspapers are freely asking whether the Conference will be the beginning of an Association of Nations, to use Mr. Harding's alternative title for the idea embodied in the League of Nations. To ask the question is, we think, to misunderstand that cautious method of proceeding which we are sure we are right in attributing to Mr. Harding. We can imagine him saying to himself, " Let's see what the Disarmament Conference is like first. Let me see if it is workmanlike and practical. Then I shall be able to judge whether a permanent adoption of the principle is desirable." Meanwhile a good deal is happening that will be valuable material ready to the hand of Mr. Harding if he wants to expand his tentative ideas for an Association of Nations. The League of Nations at Geneva, for example, has created the permanent Court of International Justice. The Court has always been one of the main ideals among American statesmen who wish to bring their country into systematic co-operation with other nations. Like us, they are great believers in Law as the proper nucleus of organized life.
Let us accept Mr. Harding's methods on their merits. Let us agree with him, since he was the convener of the Washington Conference, that we must act upon his prin- ciple of one thing at a time." For our part, we regard nothing as more certain than that if there are no setbacks owing to stupid blunders or wanton follies, America in a few years be playing an equal part with the other Great Powers in acknowledging her trusteeship for the peace of the world and for making the world safe for civilized people.
Previous page
