Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1921-06-12
INTERN NATIONAL DIS
ARMAMENTS.

seems inclined to substitute fol
the Borah amendment which re-
quests the president to enter into
diplomatic negotiations with Great
Britain and Japan looking to-
ward reduction in naval arma.
ments, a general resolution which
indorses the supposed views Of the
president on the disarmament ques.
ton and requests him to call a
conference Of the nations at Wash
ington with a view to discussing
both military and naval disarma-
| ment.
Senator Borah says that this
broadening of his resolution is a
scheme devised by opponents OF
| naval disarmament to shelve the
question for an indefinite period,
| as they realize that they cannot
beat it as it stands. We are in
| clined to suspect that Senator
Borah may be right. There was
determined opposition to his reso-
luton in the senate, backed by the
administration in the first place.
Then all opposition was suddenly
withdrawn, and the Borah amend
men, passed without one dissent
ing voice. A new effort to kill it
develops in the house, based on an
even greater degree of disarma-
ment that Senator Borah proposed
in his resolution. The senator
from Idaho says that naval dis
armament might be obtained by
international consent of the three
naval powers right now, but mill
itary disarmament is impractical at
this time because Of conditions in
Europe, and that the real object
Of those pressing the idea of an in
ternational disarmament conven-
ton is to blanket his resolution,
knowing well that nothing worth
while will come from delegate
conference on this subject as the
resolution proposes.
We are not ready to charge bad
faith on the part of all the con-
gressmen who propose a broader
substitute for the Borah resolu-
ton, but we are ready to agree with
him that it is practical and possible
to obtain naval disarmament
with the only three nations that
have any naval strength of impor-
lance, while it is impossible at this
time to arrange general military
disarmament without long delay, if
at all.
Great Britain has not been build
ing any new battleships since the
war. Japan has intirnated that it
would gladly restrict its naval
building program if the United
States would do likewise. Japan
has been building new battleships,
but not nearly as fast as the Uni
ted States has done. In fact, we
alone among the great naval pow
ers have been building new fight
ing ships faster than ever before.
Japan and Great Britain need their
money for other purposes. No
doubt they would gladly quit
building freely naillion-dollar bat
tleships if the United States would
agree to do the same.
It seems quite likely that we
could make this arrangement to
reduce naval expenditures with
Great Britain and Japan, and these
are the only naval powers besides
ourselves worth considering at
at present. But the reduction Of
military forces is quite another
matter. France is at present the
great military power in Europe
having about million men under
arms. But France is not likely to
disarm at present, as she feels
charged with the military duty Of
seeing that Germany carries out
the treaty of Versailles. To any
representation on our part that she
should reduce her military estab-
lishment France is likely to say
to US you have refused to even ap-
prove of peace, or to guarantee us
against the danger of a new inva-
sion of our frontiers against Ger
many. and therefore you are
estopped from complaint because
we safeguard that treaty ourselves
by the military force at our COM
mand. Great Britain has need for
more troops instead of less troops
than she now has, and other ma
tons Of Europe are in much the
same fix. We doubt if much could
be accomplished by a general dis