Evening star., 1933-05-22
Text of Davis Speech
Chief U. S. Delegate Says Nations Must Determine
Whether to Go Forward With Progressive Dis
armament or Revert to PreWar System.
BY the Associated Press.

The text of the speech delivered to-
day before the Geneva Disarmament
Conference by Norman H. Davis, CHIEF
delegate of the United States, follows
/ The initiative taken by the President
of the United States in communicating
directly with the heads of states par
! ticipating in the Economic and DiSarm-
ament Conferences was prompted by the
pressing need for concerted and de-
cisive action to solve the interrelated
problems with which these two confer
ences must deal.
The Disarmament Conference has
reached the moment for definite deci-
sions. We must face the issue; we must
now determine whether the nations OF
the world propose to go forward with
progressive disarmament or revert to
the pre-war system of unrestained com
petition in armaments with all the
| continuance of the international suspi-
| cion and fear which this will involve.
Suicidal Arming Hit.
At the end of the World War the
PEOPLES of all states and their leaders
resolved that the suicidal armament
policy of the preceding decades must
be changed.
They were convinced that this policy
had been one of the contributing fac
| tors which brought about the war.
Hence a new policy regarding arma-
ments was incorporated as funda-
mental part of the peace settlement.
This policy, adopted to prevent fu-
ture race in ornaments. was based on
the principle that armaments are a
matter of general concern and that the
time had passed when each state should
be the sole judge of its armaments.
To carry out this conception, pro-
vision was made for the disarmament
of the defeated powers and at the same
time a decision was taken, unprece-
dented in history. whereby the VIC
torious states voluntarily assumed an
obligation to reduce their own arma-
ments.
As first step, the peace treaties
and her allies with view to render
ing impossible any aggression on their
part. In fact, the theory behind these
treaties was that the military forces
of the disarmed powers should be fixed
on the basis. of the maintenance OF
internal order and the necessary po-
hcilg of frontiers, but no more.
The whole purpose of these pro-
visions was to guarantee that the
armies of Germany and her former
allies should thenceforth stay at home.
Special Treatment Unwise.
It would neither have been just nor
wise, nor was it intended, that the
central powers should be subject for
all time to a special treatment in arma-
ments. There is, and has been, a cor
responding duty on the part of the
other powers. parties to peace treaties.
that by successive stages they, too.
would bring their ornaments down to
a level strictly determined by the needs
of self-defense.
While the United States is not bound
by the provisions or the implications
Of those treaties, have no hesitancy
in saying that it is the will of our
people, interpreted by President Roose-
welt, to join with the other powers in
disarming down to that level. and we
are prepared to exert our influence to
bring, this about, not by theoretical
statements of good intentions, but by
decisive and progressive reduction Of
armaments through international agree
ment.
The present situation admits Of no
further delay. The states of the world
must either 60 forward in good faith to
carry out In all its implications the dis
armament policy which they adopted in
l9l97or We must recognize frankly that
this policy has been abandoned and
reconcile ourselves to reverting to a
race in competitive armament.
If the latter course is taken the con-
sequences are inevitable. Sooner or
later there will be the breakdown of the
peace machinery which has been so
laboriously built up since 1918 and the
world will be swept into another war.
The immediate result of failure here
would be setback to economic re-
covery, which depends upon such mu-
tual confidence between nations as will
permit real collaboration in the task
of restoring international trade and the
freer movement of goods.
This Is impossible in a situation
clouded by the fear of war National
budgets which should be devoted to pro-
ductive and social end are burdened
with excessive and wasteful expenditures
for armament. This leads In turn to
an almost unbearable load of taxation
on all our peoples.
No Alternative Seen.
If we thus candidly face the situation
there is really no alternative for sane
world to consider. 1t is inconceiyable
that the. responsible leaders of any
country in the world could hesitate over
this issue. We cannot shirk the duty
which this choice imposes upon us. We
cannot safely delay taking effective
steps to reduce armamentS to a purely
defensive basis.
As far as the position of the United
States is concerned, We are frank to
recognize that we have simpler prob
lem to meet than have many of the
European powers. Fears and apprehen-
Slons based on historical and racial
grounds have led to the maintenance
OF large armaments in Europe. These
large armaments have caused resent
ment, particularly in the less armed
countries. The resulting political ten
sion has in turn reacted to keep up the
general level Of armaments.
We are not unaware of the difficult
ties which lie in the way of reduction
in armaments here 1t is our very de-
tachment from this situation which
gives us hope that we may exert 4
helpful influence toward the realization
of our common objective. But we are
prepared to aid in other ways than
through exerting our influence, and l
shall take this opportunity to show
what we are prepared to do.
AS regards the level of armaments,
we are prepared to go as far as the
other states in the way of reduction
We feel that the ultimate objective
should be to reduce armaments ap-
proXimately to the level established by
the peace trcatieS-that is, to bring
tarmaments as soon as possible through
successive stages down to the basis of a
domestic police force.
In particular, as emphasized by
President Roosevelt, we are prepared to
join other nations in abolishing weapons
of an aggressive character which not
only are the more costly to construct
and maintain, but at present are the
most likely to lead to breach of the
! peace.
Lessening War Dangers.
To cut the power of offense and re-
move the threat of surprise sttac; would
do more than anything else to lessen
! the danger of war.
! Almost a ySar ago the American Gov
| prnment submitted a DrOOOs2l along