Evening star., 1927-10-23
BY FRANK HI. SIMONDs.

| ~ ENEVA.-What are the pres
ent prospects of disarma'
T ment in Europe? For the
~ predetermined American,
keenly aware of the fact OF
| two successive failures at Geneva,
those of the preparatory conference
and of the three-power meeting, the
reports Of the latest adventure Of the
League must be examined in the light
of this question.
Actual progress has been exactly
gymnastics almost unequaled in mod
ern times have been performed. Words
have been discovered to reconcile prin.
ciples and accommodate positions
which were-and remain-irreconcil.
able. But in the end every one re-
mains exactly in the position taken
before the Assembly. Armies remain
untouched.
This failure in the Assembly was
nightly forwarded by failure in the
three power naval conference. In the
earlier gathering the British repre-.
SentativeS stood uncomprOmisingly
upoL their right to fix their naval
strength. They openly adopted the
principle that disarmament was con.
ditional upon security, and security
was something for the individual coun-
try 20 decide.
Greater Tonnage Needed.
Although the war had at one time
eliminated the single fleet in Europe
dangerous to Britain and had made
1t impossible for France or Italy, the
remaining great powers, to build fleets
even remotely menacing to Britain,
the British at the naval conference
felt bound to ask for themselves
cruiser tonnage in advance of that pos.
sessed before the war.
AS far as Europe is concerned, this
British decision carries no regret.
Since both France and Germany feel
themselves insecure, both welcome the
existence Of a great British navy and
are inclined to praise rather than criti.
Cize the decision to increase it.
On the other hand, those Cont
mental nations, like France, which
rely mainly upon armies for security,
see in the British stand with respect
OF their navy an ultimate acceptance
Of the Continental view that security
must be based upon force. After the
naval conference no British states.
man can urge France to reduce her
army beyond French conceptions OF
plies to all other armed nations. The
words spoken by Bridgeman and Cecil
at Geneva supply the retort for any
British urging for reduction Of Con.
tinental armies.
Pooling Of Strength Alternative.
Now the Continental position with
respect of disarmament is simple. For
all countries the alternative to large
individual armies is a pooling of the
military strength of all nations be.
longing to the League in a common
alliance to defend any member wan
tonly attacked. With such an alliance
the countries could afford to reduce
their own armies.
But second British principle here
intervenes. The British refuse to Join
any League combination which might
give collective guarantee to all mem.
bers. They insist upon being strong
enough at sea to defend themselves.
They refuse on land to bind them.
| selves to help defend any country in
a League alliance.
The Briton says, in substance: 81
will have the fleet I need. I will
agree to. use my naval and military
strength in Europe only where it is
clear in advance my interests are al
stake. Since war in the Rhineland
must affect me, will agree, through
the Locarno pacts, to defend the from.
tiers, of France. Germany, Belgium
and, by inference, Holland. But, since
my interests are not necessarily in.
volved in Poland, Rumania or Jugo.
slavia, I will make no general con.
tract"
He makes the further ohserva tio,,.