THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS: At Geneva

The proceedings of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission* at Geneva (TIME, May 24) got under way last week with the election to its presidency of Jonkheer J. Loudon, onetime Foreign Minister of the Netherlands. Interest at once centered upon the pronouncements of Hugh Simpson Gibson, representing the U. S., and Count von Bernstorff, head of the German delegation—the former grave and earnest, the latter in festive mood.

U. S. Proposals. Mr. Gibson’s speech was couched in general terms prudently chosen to convey his meaning without rubbing Continental sensibilities the wrong way. He keynoted the Administration’s disarmament policy on four points:

1) Ample time and patience must be allowed for the consideration of “general abstract principles” of disarmament. (A concession to the Latin nations’ view that “disarmament” must “logically” take into account the “potential armaments” possessed by the nations: e.g., dye factories instantly convertible into poison gas plants, etc.)

2) Every effort must concurrently be made “to isolate from the general problem as many concrete questions as possible and then deal with these definite questions in a direct and practical way.” (A recognition of the British thesis that “practically” disarmament can effect only “actual armaments”: i.e., soldiers, guns, warships, etc.)

3) The U. S. Government gives as its opinion: “The conditions prevailing in different regions of the world are so varied and so many divergent factors are involved that constructive achievement in the matter of limitation of land armament appears to lie in the conclusion of regional agreements rather than in an effort to work out a general plan for limitation applicable to the whole world.” (Obviously this lines up the U. S. with the British rather than the Latin viewpoint, and recalls the “Geneva Protocol” (TIME, Oct. 13, 1924, et seq.) by which the Latin nations hoped to “put teeth into the League.” Britain, aware that the U. S. possesses an antipathy to joining a league whose “teeth” might become U. S. soldiers, sidetracked the Protocol, for which was substituted the “regional” Locarno security agreements. The Latin nations continue to protest that teeth must be put into the League before it can bite the armed enemies of peace.)

4) “With respect to naval armament, it may be noted that, while a substantial part of the program presented to the Washington conference by the American Government was realized, no agreement was reached as to the limitation of competitive building of naval craft other than capital ships and aircraft carriers. The American Government would welcome any steps which might tend to the further limitation of competitive naval construction.” (Widely interpreted last week as a hint at the Administration’s reputed desire to hold another Washington conference for naval disarmament, while land disarmament is proceeded with at Geneva.)

German Irony. Since Germany, a disarmed nation, can profit only by the disarmament of her potential foes, the German delegation had every incentive to further the proceedings at Geneva last week and made good use of its opportunities—Herr von Bernstorff declaring, for example, that the German foreign policy “is now completely dominated by the spirit of Locarno.”

None the less, the many obvious grounds of dissent at Geneva last week among Germany’s onetime enemies, gave Count von Bernstorff an opportunity for polite but insidious irony which he was unable to resist. The Count, whose vivid charm of manner won him much social popularity in Washington before his “undiplomatic”** intrigues as pre-War German Ambassador were discovered, arose at Geneva last week and spoke with a malicious twinkle in his eye: “The delegates should apply to their nations the same rules which they applied in disarming Germany. . . . Talk of ‘regional security’ would seem slightly out of place in this discussion, though we Germans sympathize with those who seek security, having noneourselves. . . . But is not war now impossible? Has not the League changed all that? Unfortunately some of the delegates are talking as though the date were 1914.”

Developments. M. Paul-Boncour (France) and Viscount Cecil (Britain) decorously renewed the argumentative contest over “potential” and “actual” disarmament which they voiced publicly at the December League Council session (TIME, Dec. 21). It was deemed prudent to thrash these differences out in committees, two of which were accordingly formed. Late despatches reported that the Japanese representative, Baron Matsudaira, was discussing privately with Mr. Gibson the possibility of another Washington naval conference.

It was made clear by all concerned last week that the work begun at Geneva is of a preliminary and academic character that it may properly be expected to proceed for perhaps a year or more without striking results.

*Its full and descriptive title: The Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, being a Commission to prepare for a Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments.

**His subordinate military and naval attaches, von Papen and Boy-Ed, directed most of the “Teutonic plots.” (See GERMANY, “Boy-Ed Coming?”)