Evening Star Newspaper, January 31, 1932, Page 77

THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY 31, 1932. Shall the World SYMPOSIUM inWhich Are Presented the Views of the Following Eminent Statesmen and Diplomats: J. Ramsay MacDonald Lord Pawrmoor Christian Lange Viscount Cecil Frederick Francois-Marsal Paul Boncour Setsujo Sawada Paul Painleve HIS week at Geneva the attention of the whole world will be concentrated upon the all-important Disarmament Conference. Whether the nations of the earth are to continue competition in armamengs or come to an agreement upon limitation is the vital issue. Will aught be accompished? Has the time arrived for untversal scrapping of the implements of warfare? What are the pros- pects for this much-heralded February parley? Herewith are views of leading statesmen among the great powers outside of the United States. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD, Prime Minister of Great Britain. HAT after the last war we should all be armed to the teeth in a vain attempt to be secure; that our national industries should be loaded with excessive burdens of taxation in order to pay for armaments which, as has been proved with such dramatic force, when used to the very utmost bring no comfort or tranquility either to victors or vanquished— all this is one of those queer, irrational futilities in which nations indulge when they have neither the courage nor the wisdom to follow the straight ways of simple common sense. The next generation will have none of our war experience to make it dread battle; it will see the heroes of our muddy trenches in a romantic landscape. If it is to be saved from our suffer- ing that will only be if we have guarded it by our actions from the possibility of repeating our mistakes. It is, therefore, with some apprehension that we note the very slow prog- ress that is being made with disarmament. We can make as many peace treaties as we like, but if we do not start the machinery of con- ciliation and arbitration and, by putting an end to armaments, give it a chance of .working, there is nothing more certain than that we shall be called upon sooner or later to fight. LORD PARMOOR, Former Chief British Representative to the League of Nations Assembly. DO not underrate the difficulties of the coming Disarmament Conference, but I be- lieve that the people of Britain can exercise a compelling influence if we make it clear to all other countries that we are whole-heartedly in favor of disarmament, and moreover regard an effective scheme of limitation as a national debt of honor, not only under paragraph 8 of the League CovV nt, but under the assur- given to Germany when the Treaty of illes was signed nder that treaty not only this country but other allied powers gave assurance to Germany of our intention to disarm within reasonable limits. Instead, the armed forces of some of these countries are today more powerful and more deadly and effective than at any time in history This danger of competition in the efficiency of national armaments should need no emphasizing. It cannot tend toward peace. It will inevitably lead to war in the long run. The Conference on World Disarmament, however, which is to be held in February, affords an opportunity for the nations to de- cide whether they will continue this cruel competition in armaments or come to an agree- ment on a system of relative limitation. We must see that this opportunity is utilized to the full under our guidance and inspiration. If the opportunity of February, 1932, is not utilized to arrive at mutyal reductions in armaments we may not easily have another chance. CHRISTIAN LANGE, Secretary of the Interparliamentary Union at Geneva. HE final solution of the armament problem has been again and again delayed. No further procrastination can be suffered. The date is set, the discussions nolens volens have to be conducted. It would baffle a prophet to forecast the final result, but for myself I look forward to it with great hopes. I consider it a good sign that at the Preparatory Con- ference which sat in Geneva in 1930 the repre- sentatives of every state, at least in principle, took a stand for disarmament. Now for the first time in the history of the world the possi- bility will be seriously discussed, and the his- toric significance of this fact must not be dis- regarded. The Preparatory Oonference accepted a gen- eral disarmament scheme into which the cor- responding figures might be fitted. This pre- liminary agreement, the result of long and tiring work, is of itself an important achieve- ment. It gives the foundation for the forth- coming Disarmament Conference. I do not approve of the attitude of those states which, under the pretext that the agreement does not offer a radical solution of the problem, desire to disc an Such a discussion would nullify t results already achieved with such difficul d would start us again on the road along which we have halfway progressed. Let us not criticize what we have already accom- plished. but work for its further development. *FTh mportance of educating public opinion disarmament cannot be exaggerated. rnalist and artist, every institution and organization which has an educative in- fluence has a sacred duty to fulfill; to instill in all minds the idea that war is finished forever that we want to live in peace, that out of steel we want scythes and hammers to be made and not machine guns, that we want to work and not to fight and that, above all, we want to put an end to the insanity of armaments. VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD, Former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the League of Nations Union. THE course of disarmament undoubtedly has been mmpeded by the suspicions which some European countries still entertain for their neighbors. We must admit that there gre countries on the Continent which honestly and sincerely believe that their future security de- pends on their armaments. But I think that now even the most sus- picious nations are beginning to realize what the League of Nations has done for their se- curity. It is on confidence in the guarantee which the League of Nations affords, in the pacts and agreements which the League of Nations fostered, in the inevitability with which, in the event of aggression, the measures agreed in these pacts will be put into force in confidence, that is, of the security afforded by the League of Nations, that our hopes for uni- versal disarmament must be based. Public opinion in all countries has indorsed the principles of those agreements. Even in the most suspicious eountries of all, a large body of opinion declates for disarmament. And for this reason I have every hope that the forthcoming conference will represent a real step forward toward a disarmament which will be universal and international. Uniltateral disarmament will be worse than useless. FREDERICK FRANCOIS-MARSAL, Former Prime Minister of France. HEN the Germans ask the allies, and especially France, to disarm, our first and perfectly natural impulse always is to ask why. Germany knows perfectly well that France will not attack her. She also knows that our only desire is to live at peace, paying due respect to treaty obligations and the rights of everybody. Demonstrations of the kind car- ried out at Coblenz by the Stahlhelm seem to us to show pretty clearly that this ideal does not appeal to Germany. She is the only country which wants to disturb this peace; but we shall certainly not help her in this, either by carrying our disarmament still further or in permitting Germany to do what she has been doing without permission for years. that is to say, adding to her armaments. We are quite aware that forbidding Germany or any other country to arm is a measure of comparatively little utility. Napoleon defeated Prussia and forbade it to form another army, put that did not prevent him from being over- thrown with the assistance of Prussia in 1815. We, nevertheless, prefer not to abandon our moral force, which, in the present state of afe fairs, is on our side. If Germany wants to attain complete dis- armament, she has a very simple way of at- taining this purpose. She has only to adopt such an attitude as will convince the rest of the world that her intentions are peaceful; and as soon as the clouds of fear vanish from the European sky, as soon as nations cease to apprehend another conflagration, the armies will vanish of themselves. PAUL BONCOUR, President of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the Chambre de Deputies. THE date of February 2, 1932, will be one of the highest importance. The fate of Europe will be at stake. If the Disarmament Conference fails, we shall have war within the next three years. In conformity with what was agreed at Locarno, the question of the reductions to be made by each country will have to be con- sidered on the basis of the armaments actually existing when the conference takes place. It is a dangerous march, but, if I may be allowed to eall up remembrance of warfare in such a connection, the more dangerous the country through which one has to march, the sooner it is done the better. There are two ways, one of which does not depend on us. The first and the best—but I doubt whether it will be accepted—would be for France to lead Europe another stage along the road to international security and mutual assistance by definitely stating beforehand the further reductions of armaments which she would be prepared to carry out if the principal powers concerned agreed to do the same and if the effect of such large reductions convinced pub- lic opinion in these countries of the connection between disarmament and security. The second way, which is only a pis aller, is sic rebus stantibus, as they say at The Hague, to make evident to everybody the re- duction of effectives since Locarno resulting from the adoption of one year's military service. We must not allow tune public imagination to be affected by such figures as could be pro- duced by adding our colonial forces to our home army to make up the total of our per- manent forces. We must not allow it to be said that we have made up for this real reduction by less strictness in medical examinations at the ex- pense of the health and physical fitness of re- cruits, by engaging a number of professional soldiers of whom we shall not obtain the num- ber considered necessary and by swelling the ranks and giving a military appearance to units by means of auxiliaries who in reality are only civilian employes. Above all, it cannot be admitted that the decrease in military expenditure proceeds in proportion, so to speak, to the decrease in effectives. Yes, the shorter period of service is more expensive. The transfer to the one- year service system entailed extra temporary expenditures. This is quite true, but the one has its limits and the otner must exhaust its effects. We made ourselves the advocates at Geneva of the limitation of expenditure, be- cause it is the simplest and easiest way. We Continued on Seventeenth Page