Evening star., 1932-12-18

1 Is Ilndl example OIL Lue HlSlOI
tune which has steadily ATTENDED
the Arms Conference that even tht
i concluding phase should be totally
obscured by the controversy over the
debt question. At the outset of the con-
ference it was the Shanghai campaign
which seized the attention of the world
pushed it into the background. Now
the war debts have relegated it to the
back pages of the newspapers.
Last February the Arms Conference
met after six years OF preparation and
there were gathered at Geneva under
the shadow of the League the prime
ministers, foreign ministers and lead
ing diplomats of Europe. 1t was the
universal statement in all the press Of
the world at the time that the success
or failure of the conference to arrive
at concrete and considerable results
would be of incalculable significance
Indeed, the familiar word was that the
conference must succeed because the
consequences of failure would be too
serious to consider.
When, however, the conference ad-
journed for the Easter holidays it was
clear that there was not the smallest
chance that any real progress could be
made in the direction of reduction of
tIlc ClltCllNtS VI llle dllllcu lldO1Ollo
The French demand that security
should precede disarmament and the
arming of the League come before the
disarming of the member nations
closed the door to the larger hopes
which had been cherished chiefly In
America and Britain.
AS a consequence, when the confer
ence reassembled, after a sensational
but unsuccessful dash of Mr.. Stinson
ito Europe, attention was concentrated
Npan the effort to put restrictions upon
the means Of making war. Ar effort to
establish a contrast between defensive
and offensive weapons was made and
tentative plans were drafted for the
abolition of certain types Of warfare.
But this resulted in calling in the ex-
perts and the experts proceeded to
technical discussions which opened the
prospect of hundred years Of CONVEX
sations.
Destroy Hoover Proposal.
BY Midsummer it was plain that not
even an agreement effectively banning
certain weapons was possible and the
conference was on the point Of perish
ing of pure inanition when Mr.. Hoover
intervened with his dramatic and draS-
tic reduction proposal. But no sooner
had that been presented than it was
clear that delegates who could agree
on nothing else stood firm against the
project of the American President.
Simon for Britain and Boncour for
France. in ways characteristic to the
diplomacy of their respective countries,
proceeded to destroy the Hoover project
while praising the initiative and pur-
pose of the President.
There was nothing left then but to
Nf ~
which gave the impression of progress,
held out the hope of later resumption
of discussion and catalogued series of
details in which wholly conditional
agreements had been reached. But all
semblance of progress was shattered
when Germany refused to sign the final
report because it denied her equality,
Italy because the results were in Mus
solini'S phrase derisory and Russia be-
cause all real disarmament was lack
ing. Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria
followed suit.
Worst of all, too, hard upon the heels
of German action at Geneva, came the
announcement from Berlin that Ger
many would not return to the confef-
ence until her request for equality was
honored. Then came acrimonious cor
respondence between Berlin on the one
hand and London and Paris on the
Other. EUOrtS TO get Germany Dack
ran to a new Intervention by Mr..
Hoover. but his appeal proved futile.
Thus efforts to revive the conference
waited upon change in the German
attitude
But while the failure of the Arms
Conference is now conceded abroad on
every hand, in the United States the
explanation is still left in the vague.
Yet the reasons, clear now, were just as
plain year ago, indeed, have been
clear ever since the question of dis
armament was first brought up in an
International conference at Washing
ton more than a decade ago. In fact,
no progress has been or is now possible
toward effective limitation or reduction
OF the armies or navies of continental
Europe while the political issues remain
unsettled.
As long as Germany at one time de-
mands equality of armament with
France and Poland. and at the same
time proclaims her purpose to force
territorial changes on the Continent
which both France and Poland regard
as fatal to their own security or unity,
these nations will not agree to German
equality. But as long as Germany is
denied the right to arm to the extent of
her neighbors, she, for her part, will