New-York tribune., 1921-12-02
Harding Makes
Consent Basis
OF Negotiation
(contlnusd from rage ons)

NS""S"uou NV" Posu v"ot
bitrary will through the exercise of
their superior powers of coercion.
1t is apparent at glance how dia-
nletrically opposite this method is to
that which is embodied in the League
Of Nations, which is ruled by select
4, body, was designed and declared to
! be union of wills which no nation
would dare to oppose, and which in
certain circumstances automatically
declares war, imposes economic block
AIDES, and in effect operates as SUI
per-go government to enforce peace on
its own terms.
Absence of Coercion Noticeable
Looking more closely into the opera
tion of this conference we find that
there is not only a total absence of
coercion, but that in reaching a de-
cision on special questions it is only
the parties whose interests are af-
fected who have voice in it, In the
matter Of naval armament the naval
powers made the decision. In matte ers
affecting the Far East, those who have
interests are hearu and determine
what shall be done. When these have
agreed, the questions, for the time at
least, will be settled. They will be
settled peaceably and by common con
sent. If it is found advisable to yield
q point here or here, it will be yielded
because it was thought to be ad-
vantageous, not because it was forced
by menace or compulsion.
When we turn our thought toward
disarmament on land it is evident
why nothing could be done by this
conference in this direction beyond
urging its desirability 1t could not
be done by this conference without
repudiating the Presidents method,
because the armed nations were not
here. France was here for other rea-
sons, had right to be heard. and
gave an explanation of her attitude.
If pressure had been brought to lear
upon France to change her policy the
method would have been falsifed. 1t
was recognized that, until the Presi-
dents method can be voluntarily ac-
cepted as between France and her
/ neighbor, between Poland and her
neighbors. between other nations of
! Europe now heavily armed or con-
! sidering themselves in danger, this
method does not apply to them. Land
! disarmament, therefore. could not be
prof tably discussed in this confer
ence.
Voluntary Action Essential
Can it be profitably discussed in
any conference Undoubtedly it can,
when the nations of continental Europe
or an important group of them can
apply this method voluntarily. 1t may
be asked, could not President Harding
I impose it upon them by inviting them
all to conference now? He would at
once be confronted by the question
What is your interest in this matter
Why do you demand that we shall dis
arm when our armament is our only
protection? What have you to offer
in the place of it:
And, faithfully representing the life
blood of the American people, the Pres
ident could only reply: "Gentlemen
there is a method by which you can
mutually seek your safety. Are you
willing to resort to it? If you are, you
will suggest that conference be called d
by yourselves to discuss this question
at which you will all give your recipro-
cal pledges of good faith. Until you
( by agreement, you must live IS you
arc living. You cannot reasonably ask
nation that has no part in your quar-
rcls to take decisive part in them"
There is. indeed, an exception to be
made TO this answer, and that is the
| reason why France spoke on the sub
ject of disarmament on land in this
conference. There is a treaty, there
are several treaties, on this subject
They were the result of war, it is true
but, If they are not to be enforced, the
] war was lost TO the victor and won by
the vsnquished. America had q part
In that war. Being now at peace, she
does not wish to renew it; but she
cannot admit that the war was lost to
the victor, and as a consequence she
cannot advise to disarm in the pres
/ ence of u probability that in that case
the war might be renewed.
Harding's Method Analyzcd
To return to the Presidents method
1t does not apply to matters which can
not be settled by mutual understand
ing and agreement. 1t does apply, how
4 ever, to all matters where agreement
may be reached. 1t clearly applies to
the whole question of the Pacific, be-
cause there an agreement between a
few powers can be reached If there
/ remain details, and there are many
that cannot be definitely acted upon
now that require further examination
or further conversations among the gov
4 ernments after this conference has ad
/ journed, then the method requires
future conferences and medium OF
! direct contact between the powers in
1 body that will give continuity and Sc.
1 quence to these proceedings and watch
over the execution or the agreement.
made
1t may be premature at this time tc
! discuss the ultimate bearing of this
method on an Association of nations
in a general sense, but it is a fitting
time to point out that it implies nc
rivalry with the existing League Of
Nations.
The more closely the two movements
are compared the more evident does
this appear. The League of Nations
is a corporate body, bound by specific
obligations which cannot be set aside
without it's virtual dissolution The
conference at Washington is bound BY
nothing, unless it may be the honor OF
those who participate in it. Its pro
gram is made by itself It's duration
is determined by the will of its mem.
bers. The decisions it may reach will
represent the agreements that are pos.
sible at this time, and they may bs
enlarged at any future time.
Super-Government Avoided
The same may be said of any future
conference on any subject which may
be called in the spirit of the Presi-
dents method. Obviously, there are
subjects which it is not appropriate for
Washington to discuss, for the reason
that they are not Washington's bust
ness. Others may pursue the Presi-
dents method, II they choose, and it is
highly to be commended to all, but for
| the President to summon the nations
to discuss those subjects would be q