Evening star., 1927-08-07
BY BEN McKELWAY.

!" HE spectacle of the two leadlng nations
each sprung from common source
each speaking the same language, each
Il cherishing the same traditions Of pride
In race-deadlocked at Geneva over the details
of principle upon which both have reached
accord, stands in sharp contrast before
world which recently applauded the spirit OF
Locarno.'
In America the question is asked: 'If Great
Britain sought a standard for cruisers most
suited to herself and least suited to us. holding
tenacously to that standard on the ground
that relinquishing it would endanger her ma.
tional security, who, in her opinion, will
threaten this security? 1t must be America"
In England the question Is asked why
did America seek great numbers of large cruis-
ers best suited for aggressive warfare. unless
she plans to use them. And against whom?
1t must be England
And Europe, still basking in the light of
Locarno, asks whether any limitation of arma
ment Is feasible or is longer practicable unless
there has been previous agreement that there
will be no war The necessity for great arma-
ments is the possibility of Remove by
treaty the probability, and what strength Is
left in the argument of necessity?
The breakup in Geneva can be aScribed, in
America, to many things far removed from the
probability OF war between the United States
and Great Britain. 1t can be laid at the door
of a Tory government in England perhaps the
most re1CtlOnafy government tnere IN the last
so years. which cannot escape the thought, in
dealing with the United States. that she is
dealing with recalctrant stepchd. 1t
be blamed on Britain's strategy in attain
ing and seeking to maintain her traditional
supremacy of the 1t can be called due
to carefully nodded public opinion which
CARDS America a sort of imperialistic Shy
lock. and whose motives easily discredited
Again, it may be considered in the light of
technical disagreement in which both parties
are sincere and justified by the eXigencies OF
their international situations.
But stripped to its fundamentals the Geneva
conference has failed. 1t has failed and with.
out the complications to be expected from diff.
ference In language difference in racial tenn.
permanent difference in social development. 1t
has failed in an attempt further to extend the
provisions of a treaty limiting armament as an
economic eXpedent. If the opportunities for
ever using this armament in warfare were re-
duced to the minimum by mutual agreement
never to engage in war, would this conference
have succeeded or would future conferences
of the same nature succeed?
1t Is question that Is open to almost end.
less speculation and debate. But it IS being
asked in Europe, where the picturesque ex.
preston, typicaly of American origin ito out
law war" has progressed beyond the stage of
pipedream; where the remuneration of war
has assumed the dignity of an instrument of
national policy. 1t is being discussed more
frequently, and more seriously, in America
The most natural result to be expected from
the failure at Geneva will be an increased pub.
Tic interest in the theory that is involved. Last
April the French minister of foreign affairs
Arlstde BRAND made what has since become
known as the BRAND proposal" although it
cannot be considered strictly proposal. On
the tenth anniversary of Americas entrance
into the World War Monsieur BRAND gave the
Associated Press an interview in which he
made the statement that France would be
willing to subscribe publicly with the United
. States to any mutual agreement to outlaw war
as between these two countries"
X X X X
His statement never received any formal
Acknowledgement or comment from the Ameri-
can Government. and it is to be doubted il he
intended that it should, for 1t not made
through diplomatic channels. but was simply
thrown out into the air expression Of
good will on the part of France, with hint
of the extent to which France would go, under
conditions, to demonstrate it. But it was i'm.