The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1931-10-24
"Security"

However far afield the discussion Of Premier La
val and President Hoover may lead, always they will
come back TO one theme and one word-"securtty. "
M. Laval will see to that. At every international
conference and in all the recent French diplomatic
conversations always the French have come back to
that And that is what is on M. Lavals mind in
Washington, as shown by every talk he has had with
the press correspondents.
If the President indicates that France is too in
tent on keeping up a big army in these hard times,
the premier doubtless will remind him of our big
navy and the Hoover statement that the United States
is spending more on it's military establishment than
any other nation in the world.
So the two nations are in the same boat. Both
OF them insist on relatively large rmaments for ma
tional security. Both of them talk much Of treaties,
such as their Joint product, the K-ellogg-Briand panar,
but neither is willing to trust to treaties for security.
With the world in the shape that it is today, per-
haps the unwillingness of some nations to trust en-
tirely to treatieg is not surprising. After all, for more
than five weeks the world and the President and the
premier have watched a Japanese arm operate in
Manchuria, shooting and bombing the Chinese in de-
hance of all treaties.
This, however, does not mean that great powers
like the United States and France are insecure. It
means that weak nations-such as China, or Mica
rsgua, or Germany, for that matter-are at the
AC4Cy VI liz WIdaCeI powers, Sucn as Japan, Britain,
France and the United States.
Trust in treaties requires great faith only on the
part of the weak. The strong are relatively safe in
any event.
Therefore, when the French and Americans get
all worked up about national security they are some
what is the position of the lion who is afraid to lie
down with the lamb.
TO expect France and the United States to sacri-
hce their superior strength is futile-at least no ma
ton ever has done so willingly. But France and the
United States should be expected to understand and
conserve the sources of their superior strength.
That strength is not a matter of larger arma-
ments. 1t is economic. The United States is largely
master Of the world today because of its superior
wealth and economic power; our international
strength and security would be no greater if we dou-
bled our navy, nor could it be any less if we cut our
navy in half. The same is true of French hegemony
in Europe.
The nation which controls commerce and credit.
controls the world-no matter who holds the gun.
Have we not just seen French and American bank
es shake the BIRTHS hempire? Have we not just been
Britain sink below the world power of France and
America, despite the fact that Britain still has the
largest navy in the world-a navy that has become
q liability instead of an asset?
Have we not just seen a Chinese boycott. and the
threat of a League Of Nations boycott, to make Japan
promise to withdraw her invading army?
q American and French security rests on economic
power. Huge ornaments destroy security. Huge
ornaments inevitably provoke warm which the
weak nations combine to defeat the strong nation. No
great power in history ever has survived through the
security" Of huge ornaments.