Evening star., 1932-12-11

don to be both hypocritical on its own
part and unfriendly to its late associates
in arms.
Whatever the merits of this other con-
troversy of linking war debts and repa-
rations, the fact remains that we are as
far from solution of it as ever, so long
as we deal with it in the terms in which
it hitherto has been discussed on both
sides of the Atlantic. The conclusion is
that neither the war debt problem in
itself-that is, the problem of payments
from the allied powers to the United
States-nor the linking of these pay
ments to those of German reparationS
can be settled satisfactorily as purely
problem of money payments. The Lau-
same Conference, in spite of its great
achievement, left this issue unsettled
when at the close the representatives OF
Germany asked if there was to be
new conference in case the allies were
unable to get rid of their obligations by
settlements not unlike those they had
Just accorded Germany; and both M.
Herriot and Mr. Macdonald nodded in
the affirmative. For Europe, therefore,
the settlement so far arrived at means
both reparaions and war debts or no
settlement at all, and as America re-
fuses cancellation, the whole negotia-
ton at Lausanne is still in the balance.
It will remain so until another and diff
ferent approach is found to the whole
problem.
A first attempt at this new approach
was made when American public opin-
ion began to insist that disarmament
was a part of the war debt settlement.
The answer from Europe was that this
was an entirely separate problem and
had no historic or legal connection with
that of the money settlement of the
cost of the World War. That the Euro
pean objection was technically valid goes
without saying But if the war debt
issue is not to be settled on terms Of the
original contracts, nor even on terms OF
the revised contracts of the Washington
funding operations, then the creditor
state, in the determination of the capac-
ity to pay, has a right to ask not only
what the missing payments are going
to be spent for, but it has also right
to insist that in surrendering its claims
for aid rendered the allies in securing
the victory, the governments OF those
countries should not proceed to falsify
American war aims by the creation OF
armaments in violation of the spirit, If
not the expressed terms, of the peace
treaty.
1t is the same point over again as in
the American attitude toward connecting
reparations with war debts; only this
time the point is self-evident 1t was
stated best by Senator Borah in his
speech of July %, 1892. Seldom has
any public utterance received wider ap-
proval throughout the Nation than this
radio speech. collection of editorials
from all over the country showed prac-
tically unanimous approval in every
State of the Union. It was widely ac-
claimed in Europe because, after hav-
ing stated his conditions, Senator Borah
came out strongly for a radical lessen
ing of the war debts.
PUT the conditions were an unalteraoie
part of both Senator Borah's pro-
nouncement and the public opinion
which indorsed it. The reasons for con-
Meeting disarmament with war debts,
which Senator Borah had in mind, were,
however, much more valid than the mere
historical justification of including dis
armament as fundamental part Of the
peace settlement, a symbol of the reason
why America went to war and therefore
why it ever accepted the debts.
Disarmament is an intrinsic part of
the movement for economic recovery.