Evening star., 1929-12-01

" dent Of the United States will
II necessarily receive comment in
4 A most foreign capitals. That the
President offers his proposal
as q purely personal one makes no
difference. The incumbent is too close
ly identified with his office to permit
Of any general discrimination between
his personal and official opinions.
This is well illustrated in the world
wide discussion of President Hoover'S
suggestion that food ships should be
made free Of any interference in times
of war" The suggestion was obviously
q spontaneous reaction to his own
unique experience in combating the
evil effects upon women and children
of the use of starvation as weapon
Of warfare. There was no intention to
make q formal proposal to other coun-
tries along this line or to bring the
matter UP of1cially at the forthcoming
London Naval Conference. Mr.. Hoover
was simply laying the idea before the
peoples Of the world for them to
think about.
And think about it they have, the
great naval powers particularly, but
many other countries as well. In gen.
eral, the reaction has been one OF
conmendation for the humanitarian as
poets Of the Presidents suggestion.
When this aspect has happened to coin
eide with the memory or interest OF the
country concerned, the commentator
has been unqualified.
National Reactions Typical.
Where other memories or interests
intrude, the commendation has been
modified by qualifications which, In
some cases, amount to a negative ver-
dict. The national reactions are SO
typical as to afford q striking tllustra-
tion of the traditional national atti-
tudes toward the whole question Of war
and international politics.
Take our own country, Tor example.
The day after this speech there was a
deluge of kilograms at the White House,
most of which enthusiastically seconded
the proposal to exempt food ships from
naval interference. A number OF SEN
ators and Representatives voiced their
approval. Pastors and paciflstS swelled
the note of praise. In traditional FASH
ion the vocal sentiment Of the country
ranged itself behind the humanitarian
aspect of the idea.
Some went further and urged that
the Presidents suggestion be placed
upon the agenda Of the London confer
ence. This was strongly supported by
those who favored a general discussion
of the freedom Of the seas at that con-
ference. The President and Secretary
of State, however, appear to be Of the
opinion that such a discussion would
hamper rather than assist the main
purpose Of the London meeting, namely,
the limitation-and possible reduction
of the worlds navies.
SkeptIcal Pose Questions.
There has been considerable comment
to the effect that the exemption OF
food ships would be fine thing, but
fighting with their backs to the wall,
could not be expected to live up to
any such rule when its obvious effect
would be to strengthen the enemy,
possibly to the point where he would
be enabled to win.
And who is to enforce the new regu-
lation II there Is not at least one neu-
| trail navy as strong as that of the bellig-
erent who violates it? And will that
neutral navy go to the extreme Of max
ing war to enforce it? These are some
Of the questions raised by the skep-
tical.
There is q smaller and quieter Sec
ton Of opinion which, despite a high
regard for President Hoover in general,
looks upon the food ship proposal as
utterly preposterous." 1t is imprac-
ticable. It viii arouse resentment
abroad because it will be looked upon
as made in our own interest to insure
our trade in foodstuffs at least with
both belligerents in time of war.
Hidden Purpose Sought.
As Europe has banned practically all
war except one to restrain an aggresSor
under the League Covenant, the Hoover
proposal will be construed as q blow at
the League, masked by humanitarian
ism. And, lastly, when the world is
bending every effort to eliminate war
altogether, why confuse the issue by
offering a project to mitigate the evils
Of war?
Above all, why offer q project which
If adopted would not only make it
easier for nations to go to war but the
operation of which would prolong the
! struggle indefinitely and thereby mega
tive the very humanitarian considera-
tions which oStensibly prompt the offer.
Those who argyle along these lines
for the most part men who are stepped
in the so-called realities" of interna-
tional politics-seek to find some hid
den purpose behind the Presidents pro-
posal. For them it Is too ''prepoSter-
Gus" to be considered for what it pre-
tends to be; therefore there must be
some Interior motive.
Some profess to find this in the idea
that by assuring the free passage Of
food ships to belligerent countries the
chief argument of the big navy" peo-
pie in England can be undermined
England must control the seas" is the
old Admiralty cry, "in order to insure
food supply for the British people IN
time of war"
Ingenious Arguments Used.
All right, insure the food supply by
new regulation, and the dominating
fleet is no longer necessary. Thus the
big navy" men can gracefully retire
from their position or, If they will not,
they can be forced out of 1t.
The proponents of this view Of Mr..
Hoover's plan can, of course, supply
many paragraphs in the unreported
conversation on the Rapidan between
the American President and the British
Prime Minister. To this school Of
thought the whole project Is a little
scheme Of Mr.. Hoover and Mr.. Mac
Donald to checkmate the British big
navy crowd"
Other students Of international in
trigue look upon the project as directed
at France. These wiSeacreS see Frances
intransigence as the chief menace TO
the success of the London Conference.
They expect Paris to insist upon an I'M
limited number of submarines. This.
even If there is no contributing cause,
will prevent the British from agreeing
to limit the number of their cruisers.
This in turn will prevent an Anglo
American limitation agreement and
everybody will return to feverish
building.
Pit France Against Britain.
Into this picture they inject the
Hoover proposal France, they say, will
oppose the exemption of food ships
from naval operations. Their ostensible
reason for doing so will be that 1t nulli-
fleS the economic sanctions of the