Cylchgronau Cymru

mated, four risks of mutual annihilation are eliminated. There remains the fifth risk, X, to be guarded against. This responsibility would be entrusted to the international force. As Mr. Crosby has pointed out, centralized force tends to eliminate all force, including itself." This is the surest way to disarmament. The structure of the international force should be based upon the principle of differentiation of weapons. It is not a new idea. It is applied in every civilized com- munity. The constable is armed in one way, the soldier in another. In a negative sense it has been employed to disarm Germany. Let it now be logically and impartially applied to the arma- ments of all states. If this principle could be agreed to, military aircraft, tanks, submarines, poison gas, heavy types of artillery and the newer classes of war vessels would all be handed over to the control of the international authority. This is the logical outcome of the French proposals. Thirdly, does the French plan confer undoubted superiority of force upon the League? This is the crucial question. If not, then force has not been dedicated to the exclusive performance of the police function. The international force would only be another military organisation added to those which already exist. Its military power would not be sufficient to deter the would- be aggressor nor would it eliminate competition. On the other hand, given the superiority which a thorough-going policy of differentiation provides, there is nothing to prevent the rationing of in- fantry, machine gunners, field artillery, etc., required to reinforce the centralized and mechan- ized international force, amongst the states mem- bers of the League. These quotas, controlled by THE British Delegation at the Disarmament Conference has been enfeebled by the regrettable illness of the Prime Minister. Without him and with the absence of Sir John Simon, the delegation from Great Britain, strong as it may look on paper, can enjoy little authority at Geneva. The Prime Minister apart, the mem- bers of the British delegation are new both to international conferences and to the international aspect of the question of disarmament. They have no background and, when Sir John Simon is away, no leadership. And somehow Sir John Simon has not so far quite justified the hopes which the national governments, could be fixed by agree- ment. If the principle of mutual assistance underlying the French plan is accepted, the quota contribution of each country could be assessed on the basis of population or the Bareme formula. This would be fair to everyone concerned. Fourthly, the French memorandum contains the usual prohibitory clauses. If experience counts for anything, it shows the futility of legis- lating for war. All the new and devastating weapons, all ammunition, including poison gas, should be handed over to the League. It is too dangerous to exclude anything. It only holds out a temptation to the unscrupulous and evil- minded power intent upon aggression at all costs. Everyone knows that when war passions are aroused they are fomented to fever heat. No prohibited weapon will be safe in its hiding place, no outrage will be too great, no reprisal too mur- derous, if the chances of success are enhanced thereby. Prohibition and abolition of every kind are mere window dressing. They are only in- tended to deceive the ignorant. They are founded not on reason and experience, but on sentiment and complacency. When confidence has been restored and the reign of law is in full operation these weapons may gradually be discarded. But to-day for the first time in history they can be used to provide the nations of the world with an effective inter- national sanction. In the organization of a police force they will represent the contribution of science to the maintenance of peace and the en- forcement of justice. This is the supreme task of the Disarmament Conference. WALES AND THE WORLD by Rev. Gwilym Davies, M.A. were entertained of him when he took up the great office of Foreign Secretary. He has, in the opinion of old hands in international affairs, lacked the right touch especially in dealing with the Sino-Japanese dispute. Sir John Simon's judgment is held to have been wrong in exercising a veto on the Queen's Hall meeting to protest against Japanese aggression. It was a still greater mistake on his part to send Mr. J. H. Thomas to roar like a lion at one Council meeting and then attend himself the next meeting, within a week, to coo like a dove. Perhaps the most painful impression of all was the report which