The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-04-16
Disarmament Failure

Despite optimistic statements by American and
British officials, We can not get enthusiastic over the
naval treaty announced at the London conference.
From the ofhcial summaries of the treaty now being
drafted. it looks like a face-saving device.
President Hoover, in his Memorial day and
Armistice day addresses, specifically pledged our gov
eminent to join naval reduction-not mere Limitation,
but actual reduction. Judged by that standard, the
conference has failed, because the treaty calls for
upward Of a billion dollar American increase.
Explaining this failure to achieve reduction, our
London correspondent, William Philip Sinms, says
that all the powers still are thinking in terms of war
instead of terms Of peace. albeit each one. along with
fifty others. has pledged itself solemnly never to go
to war except In self-defense."
He adds, concerning the future: IF world peace
means more to us than pious aspiration, America
must stand ready to consult with the other powers to
prevent the outbreak Of war . real disarmament
can be dismissed as out of the question, save insofar as
political understandings between the worlds leading
powers may prepare the way"
Nations demand security. They simply will not
sacrifice what they consider the security Of large
ornaments until they are given the security of
effective peace pacts. So long as the United States
refuses to join in such an effective peace pact, there
never will be any real arms reduction.
1t is not necessary for US to join in a foreign mill
tary alliance, TO which the American people rightly are
opposed, But 1t is necessary for us to make the non
binding Kellogg pact effective to the extent of prom
iSing to consult with others in crises to prevent war.
Hoovers failure to offer such consultation pact
before or at the beginning of the London conference
is the most costly disappointment of these negotia-
tons. That blunder was increased when the American
delegation after It's original refusal and long after it
was too late, made a grudging offer to CONSIDER a
consultation pact OniV OH the imNnSSihIe condition
that Great Britain first entered into a military alliance
with France.
The United States failed again to live up to
Hoover reduction pledges when it refused to consider
the British plan for progressive abolition of battle
ships and reduction Of aircraft carriers.
Others of course must share the blame with the
United States for the conference failure, especially
France and Italy.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the fault
was not so much one of motive on the part Of any
government, but rather a fault in judgment by Hoover
and Macdonald in calling the conference prenaturely.
Last fall this newspaper and others questioned
whether two or three years later would not be a more
suspicious time for a reduction conference than the
present. That has proved to be the case, or at least
this has proved a bad time.
Putting the best face possible on the situation, we
may hope that the dangerous French-Italian dispute
stimulated by the conference will subside. and we
may be thankful for the slight decrease and building
holiday in capital ships until 1886.
Because the conference was a failure, or only a
partial success, as some prefer to express it, the
United States now faces two decisions: c
VIII we spend a billion dollars to achieve tonnage
parity with Britain, as allowed by the treaty2 Or
shall we say that our dmitted superiority in potential
war resources and the lack of any immediate threat
of war with Britain enables us to postpone
a huge naval building program for a while longer,
in the hope that the Hoover joint reduction pledge
can be achieved in the 1886 conference if not before?
The second decision facing us is whether we &lall
make the non-binding Kellogg peace pact effective
by a consultation treaty or otherwise, without which
there is little chance of actual arms reduction
at any time.