Evening star., 1933-05-23
American Policy Further Defined. |.

.
In the evolution Of the new American
foreign policy the latest step Is that
taken yesterday by Norman H. Davis
ambassador at large and chief delegate
of the United States to the Disarma-
ment Conference at Geneva. While not
specifically an advance from the previ-
o,isly declared position, 1t Is neVerthe-
less q more explicit definition OF the
mart which this Government is prepared
to play in the relations Of the powers
OF the world. The important part OF 1t
, L. contained in these words:
We are willing to consult the other
states in case of q threat to peace with
a view to averting conflict. Further
than that, in the event that the states,
in. conference, determine that state
has been guilty Of q breach OF the
peace in violation Of its international
. obliqations and take measures against
the yiolator, then, If we concur in the
Judgment rendered as to the responsible
:, and guilty party, We Will refraln from
any action tending to defeat such col
slectiye effort which these states may
/. thus make to restore peace.
1--WE are heartily in sympathy with the
idea that means Of effective, automatic
| and continuous supervision should be
found whereby nations will be able to
rest assured that as long as they respect
> their obligations with regard to arma-
ments the corresponding obligations OF
their neighbors will be carried out in
the same scrupulous manner.
The simplest and most accurate def1-
milton of an aggreSsor Is one whose
armed forces are found on alien soil IN
violation Of treaties.
Analysis Of this statement shows that
the United States reserves the right of
Judgment in respect to the response
biIity and guilt Of a nation accused Of a
breach of the peace In violation Of its
international obligations. Only when
It concurs in such judgment will 1t
!, contribute by its waiver Of its right Of
trade as q neutral with the offending
or aggressor nation and abstension from
any other action which may tend to de-
feat the collective effort Of the inter-
vening states. This does not pledge the
United States to participation in actual
warfare. '~Ea5
%. In one respect the statement by Am
bassador Davis makes q valuable con-
tribution TO international understanding,
that is In the definition Of an aggres-
sor as zone whose armed forces are
found on alien soil In violation Of
treaties" This would seem to be q
simple, clear statement susceptible to
no misunderstanding. Similarly there
Is no room for doubt as to the limita-
tion put upon American participation.
The Government at Washington will
determine its part upon its own tudg-
ment and not upon that OF the other
states. It will not act, TO any extent,
until it has concurred IN the verdict
Of guilt rendered by the actively inter-
vening powers.
= In respect TO the matter OF arma-
ments, it Is now stated that the United
States is prepared to go as far as the
other states in the way Of reduction
toward the ultimate objective Of the re-
duction Of armaments Through sue
cessiye stages down to the basis Of
domestic police force" While expert
ence teaches that 1t will be almost i'm
possible to reach an agreement respect
ing the size and component elements
OF such a domestic police force" there
can be no doubt that even approximate
attainment of such basis of armament
would very greatly lessen the danger
of international conflict, especially on
. tbs assumption Of good faith on the
part Of all states
This statement by Ambassador Davis,
made, Of course, with the full approval,
II not at the dictation, OF the President,
is hailed in Europe, particularly by
Great Britain and by France, as a con-
structive peace-making and peace-keep-
ing proposal. 1t does not head the
United States toward entry into the
League of Nations, though it undoubt-
edly Is a departure from the splendid
isolation" of the United States In re-
lation to the politics and quarrels OF
the other nations Of the world.