Evening star., 1932-09-04
GERMAN ARMS DEMAND
TESTS CONFIDENCE PACT
Reich Stand for Equality With World
Powers Considered in Europe as
Event of Great Gravity.

eral limitation of ornaments. all the
nations and Germany undertake strict
ly to observe the military. naval and
air clauses which follow" No mention
whatever exists here Of reduction; only
of limitation which is what Is being
dulv carried out.
The other place is Article VIII of the
Covenant of the League of Nations,
whose essential paragraph reads: The
members of the League recognize that
the maintenance of peace requires the
reduction of national armaments to the
lowest point consistent with national
safety and the enforcement by COM
mon action of international obhga-
tions"
Here there is no question of the
others reducing to the German level.
Reduction is mentioned. but 1t IS made
specifically conditional on security and
mutual aid, which are and have been
the corner stones of Frances disarma-
ment policy.
France has never neglected the op-
portun;ty to reduce to the lowest point
consistent with its national safety and
will be able to reduce still more when
the League of Nations has organized
enforcement by common action of in
ternational obligations.
Furthermore, the French insist that
GermanyS demand must be interpreted
in the light of German agitation for
other treaty revisions. particularly ter
ritorial, and also in the light of Ger
many's steadfast refusal 20 sign, as
France has done, the compulsory ar
bitration protocol for all disputes.
NAV Lead to New Demands.
In this light there seems to be rea-
son to fear that just as the premature
evacuation of the Rhineland led to
renewed German agita5ions and insis-
tences, so the granting of the German
claim to equal ornaments may merely
lead to renewed territorial demands.
II Germany were willing to make 1t
clear that it finally accepts the new
frontiers, that would be another mat
ter
Meanwhile, what Germany seems to
be trying to do is to diStort the dis
armament clauses out of their true
meaning IN order to be better able to
force revis.o of the territorial clauses.
Somewhere between these rather ex-
treme German and French views lies
the British and American view, which
seems to be this:
Germe nv was indeed di5armed BY the
treaty of Versailles and is so still. Such
infractions as it may have committed
are presumably merely minor ones and
there Is no reason TO assume that
Germany cannot be trusted to keep
a new disarmament treaty when and
if it is made
There is something in the German
thesis, but not as much as Germany
thinks. There is a sort of implied
moral pledge for all the powers to re-
duce their ornaments, but not nee
essarily to the German level, the more
SO as everyone has agreed that dis
armament must be accomplished by
stages and not all at onca.
The ideal might be reduction to the
German level, but it cannot be attained
Immediately
Meanwhile international treaties can
not be denounced suddenly by one party
on the basis of unilateral interpre-
tation. The wording of a treaty is
complicated and requires careful study.
In the proposed general disarmament
treaty Germany in any case will obtain
the equal rights it demands, for then
all the countries will juridically be
bound one way or another and all will
have accepted some sort of servitude
for the general good. 1t Is undesirable,
meanwhile, that Germany should think
of rearming, for what is desired is re-
duction by the others, not rearming by
Germany.
Germany's best policy would, there
fore, be to drop the idea of rearmament
and work loyalty at Geneva for the
conclusion of general disarmament
treaty involving real reductions and
equally binding on all.
(Copyright, 1927