THE CONDITION FOR DISARMAMENT
THE EMPEROR WILHELM II once assured Austria that lie would be found at her side in shining armour in ease of need. Vigorous though he can be in expression himself, Signor Mussolini indulged in no such militant metaphor when he announced the result of the Italo-Austro-Hungarian conversations at Rome last Sunday. Provision had been made for consultation between the three States from time to time regarding their common interests ; each promised economic con- cessions to the others; and experts from the three countries were to be commissioned to work out details of the agreements by May 15th. So far, so good. Nothing spectacular has been accomplished, but nothing spec- tacular was aimed at. Italy has given Dr. Dollfuss moral support just when he badly needed it, and the export of Austrian and Hungarian produce through the Italian ports of Trieste and Fiume is to be arranged. Italy, moreover, is to take what imports she can of wheat from Hungary and timber from Austria, and she may find an enlarged market for her own wine and fruit in those two countries. So far as it makes for a lowering of national tariff barriers, as it undoubtedly does, the agreement is a step in the right direction. It does not go far, but when the first step has been taken the second may in due time follow. Germany and France for different reasons look askance at the attitude of friendly patronage assumed by Italy towards two lesser Central European States, and the Little Entente countries condemn a group agreement in which they have no part. But there is no reason why it should not be widened by the inclusion of other States which see fit to associate themselves with it. As things are, the Rome discussions have effected a certain relaxation of tension in Central Europe, though it is unfortunate that Signor Mussolini's public speech regarding them was not more happily conceived.
One other hopeful sign, on the horizon rather than in the foreground, is the growing possibility of Russia's entry into the League of Nations. No sentimental view need be taken of that. The prime motive, undoubt- edly, is Russia's desire to make friendships in the West as counterpoise to the enmity (though here, too, there is some improvement) of Japan in the Far East. But that is by no means all the story. Russia has had extensive experience of Geneva of late, and the contact has been increasingly harmonious. She is no longer regarded by the world as a pariah State. The United States of America has recognized her diplomatically ; this country has concluded a new trade agreement with her ; she has cemented relations with her immediate neighbours, all of them themselves members of the League of Nations. France is taking the initiative in emphasizing at Moscow and in Paris the advantages to Russia of membership of the League, and if here again the motive is obvious—to bring in 160 million Russians as compensation for the defection of 65 million Germans— it is in no way discredited by that. The League was meant to be a realist institution, not a forum for the debate of theories, and if France aims at strengthening the League as a factor making for her own national security, she is regarding it precisely as it was always meant to be regarded. Russia, undoubtedly, will take the course that she conceives will serve her own interests best. If she should contemplate joining the League she should receive a general welcome. She would, of course; he entitled to a permanent seat on the Council, and it is hardly conceivable that any of the States whose coneuzrenee is necessary would withhold its approval. But though every ground for hope must be emphasized at a moment when grounds for hope are lamentably few, it is useless to disguise the fact that disarmament is still the key of the whole international situation. Nothing is more futile than to echo the old parrot-cry that armaments do not make wars. Competition in arma- ments has made many wars and will make many more yet, if the capacity of mankind to impose restraint fails in the future as it has failed regularly in the past. That is the answer to those who would wind the Geneva discussions up and leave each nation to make whatever provision it chose for its own defence. The consequence would be certain. Every nation would set before itself the aim, voiced more than once for this country in the debates of the last few days in the House of Commons, of making itself so strong that no other nation would venture to attack it. And since strengths are relative, and .the size of one country's defensive panoply depends, on this theory, on the size of another nation's defensive panoply, which serves equally for attack, the fatal race in armaments would be in unchecked progress in six months. At all costs that must be prevented, and it is not yet too late.
Two fresh moves in the disarmament discussions have been registered in the past week. One is the publication of the German Note to France, the other the receipt by Sir John Simon of the French Note to Great Britain. Between them, if they do not sensibly change the situation, they do in some degree clarify it, and force to the front again certain issues to which this country in particular has paid too small regard. The German Note is not unreasonable. It insists on an equality which is denied to Germany by no Great Power except France, and in form not even by France. Germany asks only for defensive, not offensive, weapons ; she accepts any international control to which other Powers are ready to submit ; and in regard to her Storm Troops, she would agree to including in the disarmament convention a provision prohibiting any such formations in any country from assuming any military character. To all appearances a convention well worth having could be negotiated between Great Britain, Germany and Italy.
The difficulty is France. The French see Germany rearming, and they refuse in any circumstances to sign a convention countenancing that—but what their alternative is remains undisclosed. They object in particular to the creation of a German air force of any kind—though the only way to prevent it is the acceptance by all countries of the total abolition of military aviation, a step which circumstances make every day more essential. But France, above all, reiterates her perpetual demand for what is commonly called security, or, in relation to a Disarmament Con- vention, " guarantees of execution." This country edged hesitantly a few inches in that direction when in the last draft convention it spoke of " consultation as to the steps to be taken " in the event of a breach of the Disarmament Convention, but other countries may be forgiven for recalling that Great Britain has for fourteen years been bound specifically to join in certain far-reaching economic sanctions against any State going to war in breach of the League Covenant, and that for most of that period leading British spokesmen have regularly gone out of their way to stress the improbability of Great Britain doing anything of the sort. Such an attitude is utterly dishonourable. It may not spring consciously from a dishonourable motive. It comes rather of the strange belief that while the business of preparing for war is essentially practical, the - business of safeguarding peace is essentially academic. While that attitude prevails there can be no progress. There is still time to change it. We are not asked to go beyond the Covenant which we have signed and ratified. If we could satisfy -France that we meant to honour that signature in spirit and in letter we could make the conclusion of a Disarmament Convention something very near a certainty.
Previous page
