DISARMAMENT 'AND SECURITY [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sra,—In a recent article Mr. Lloyd George points out the vulnerable spots of comprehensive disarmament scheineS. I quote
" There is one obstacle to acceptance by these great Powers which might well prove insuperable. France will ask herself whether she can hold Morocco and Algiers without an army. • Britain will put herself the same question about India. Italy will have to consider the consequence in Tripoli, and. America will also weigh the result upon her dominion in the Philippines."
This is astute, but my own misgivings proceed from a wider.
contemplation. To seek satisfaction if unjustly treated, imagined or real, is part of human nature. Therefore, I hold; so long as the feeling of having been wronged rankles in the breast of any of the defeated nations, it is sheer delusion to count upon enduring peace.
There can be only one way to ensure this peace, and that is to reconstitute the map of Europe in accordance with the basic factors of history and geography and the exigencies of economics. -Disarmament in itself will not bring peace.
Indeed, with conditions as they are, based upon the victory treaties, the present guarantee of peace rests upon arma- ment and not upon disarmament. Disarmed, what chance has France with its population of forty million against that of Germany of sixty million ? Wars can be made with fists and razors and sticks. In April, 1924, I wrote elsewhere :
" Under the prevailing conditions of • bitter discord, general disarmament would be not only futile, but, a great deal worse than futile. Instead of preventing war, it .would facilitate its outbreak, What keeps the discontented nations down to=day is the preponder, ante in armament of victor nations. Even an approximation to a proportionate distribution of armed power would at once bring forth a general conflagration. . : . It does not seem to occur to us that a proportional reduction leaves things substantially as they were.. . . What is primarily needed is to raise the end, and not reduce the means. With the spirit elevated, the weapons
will of themselves drop from our relaxed hands... France's position in regard to disarmament is logical. With fear as the premise, the clenched fist 'is the natural conclusion."
Some day we shall think more soberly on the problems Of disarmament and security. If we only could get ourselves to face the situation squarely I There never was a more propi-
tious time for an agreement to abolish war as an instrument. for settling differences than there is in these aViakeiring days,
of interdependence. The weight of public opinion, the universal exhaustion, and. the realization that war, in the
complexities of modern life, does not pay—all these are influences making for peace. The agreement must have for.
its foundation a community of interest and mutual good will of course, a coming-together in suck a spirit involves the, making of sacrifice. But, in , the long reckoning, _how well such action pays ! Is it not preferable to have less in tran- quillity, than to hold more in anxiety ? The alternative before the nations plainly is : to yield or to arm. There is nothing' else. , Let us have done, then, with catchwords and formulas— such as Outlawry of War, Locarno Pacts, War-renouncing Treaties. It is of no laiting use, whatever form the arrange- ment takes. There can be no outward peace when there is no inward peace. Human nature can no more be legislated against than the movement of the tides.—I am, Sir, &c., New York. GABRIEL WELLS.
Previous page
