Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-09

OcuILNV VI Tue pTeSeHI session at GeHeDu
o. the Preparatory Disarmament Com
n.issdo1 OF the League Of Nations are
BY PAUL SCOTT MowRER.
passto4g D 1s:t1ns S1 the don
mission Of the League. Of Ma
i tons at Geneva, though purely
technical, is for the moment the
focus OF world politics. The reason Is
that in the long run the term "disarma-
ment" involves the whole question OF
the organization of the world for peace
and the relation of all nations to one
another.
1t is taken for granted that in its
difficult and hitherto insuperable task
of laying down general methods of limi-
tation of ornaments, the Leagues COM
mission will succeed. It will succeed
1t Is thought, because the London Naval
Conference happily arrived, for all the
flve powers concerned, at solution of
methods of naval limitation. 1t Is as
Gumed that these methods will be ac-
cepted by the Leagues commission and
that under this impetus the remaining
difficulties concerning land and air
limitation will also be successfully COM
promised.
May Meet in 1891.
1IONtOCo ULlC GCIlGNd COIIlIlI6olO1
agrees on a draft convention by De-
cember Is, the League Council, when
1t meets in January can fix q date for
the General Disarmament Conference
implicitly promised in the covenant of
the League of Nations. This date will
be either at the end of 1891 or the be-
ginning of 1882, probably the latter.
And it is in this conference rather than
in the present meeting at Geneva that
10 IL nvsfC~ alxv
the difficulties of fixing actual figures
establishing for a period of 10 years the
relation of some 81 countries one to
another In the matter of ornaments.
It will be interesting to examine
briefly, first the problem before the
present meeting at Geneva and, second,
the problems which will be confronted
by the general conference year and a
half hence.
Assuming that methods of naval limi-
tation adopted at London will be
accepted by all League members and
by Soviet Russia, there remain certain
: differences respecting methods Of air
and land disarmament.
Use Of Planes at Issue.
Respecting air forces, the great ques-
ton is whether only military and naval
planes and dirigibles should be limited
present tendency is to exclude the latter
category.
It is true that commercial aircraft
can be utilized in case of war but it Is
felt that it win be best, for the time
= being, not to 60 too deeply into the
question Of what part Of a nations
peace-ttme resources can be utilized for
war; After all. the line must be drawn
somewhere and it Is best to draw it at
an obvious point.
Regarding land forces, the main ques-
ton is how to compare countries having
only professional armies with countries
having compulsory universal military
service. Undoubtedly the present tend
ency In military circles is to favor pro-
1essional armies, because war has
become so technical that armies more
and more consist of many sorts of
highly trained specialists which a wear
or so Of compulsory training is unable
70 provide.
But in addition to these trained spe-
eaalists, every country wants TO be able
% use the bulk of its healthy adult
male population in war time, wants
Hhem TO know in rough way what
VII be expected Of them and wants
y be able to provide them with Of
4cers. This raises the question of
trained reserves.
Plan France Follows.
Some countries. like France, have q
professional army plus a years COM
pulsory training to provide reserves.
Other countries, like Great Britain and
the United States, which ostensibly
have only professional armies, meet the
problem Of trained reserves by some
sort Of military or reserve corps. Still
others, like Germany, on which q lin
tied professional army was imposed by
the peace treaties, are obliged to train
reserves secretly or under some other
name.
The point is that the problem every
where Is identical, though being met
IN different ways.
Such being the case, the Preparatory
Disarmament Commission will probably
exclude all forms of trained reserves
from limitation, though 1t remains to
be seen whether or not 1t win agree to
count troops called gendarmes or police
and troops called State militia, as in
the United States; Fascist militia, as in
xtaly, or territorials, as in Great Britain
Regarding war material the chances
are that no attempt will be made To
limit It, because 1t is so difacult to
define just what is and what is not wal
material, and because 1t can be so easily
concealed
Many countries feel that II general
limitation Of ornaments Is agreed on
there must also be some authority to
make sure that all are keeping their
agreements. After years of discussion
involving national sovereignty and
everybody's dislike of having to submit.
to Investigations of any sort, the
chances are that q League commission
viii be appointed, Of which Russia and
the United States will be members, Il
receive complaint, but without powel
TO act
Finally there remains the vita
question Of what basis Of limitation
should be established, whether simpl!
q hgure each country thinks prope'
for itself, or q ratio based on al
average of various considerations, sucl
as total population, national wealth ant
area including colonies. The chance
are that this question viii be left owe
to be settled by the big disarmament
conference itself
The task of this conference, as al
ready said, will be Ak actual figures 70
all countries
Countries like Germany, which wer
disarmed by treaty, naturally want tn
same principles under which they wer
disarmed to be applied to everybody
The Germans even proclaim that thi
was promise implied IN the treaty ant
say that unless this Is done German
automatically RECEIVERS the right to arr
IS It pleases.
German View Stated.
The German argument Is based OF
two clauses Of the treaty Of Versailles
FIRST, In the preamble, part i've, which
says that Germany accepts the dis
armament terms with view 3
1roV.derripo y1sesflnla the Y,renaraffnx, n