From February 15 to 24 the conference continued to hear the proposals for disarmament made by the leading delegate of each country. China requested limitation to a figure based on territory and population and asked for “moral” disarmament. Siam, India, and Peru submitted their proposals. M. Constantin Maynard, the delegate from Hayti, made the longest speech of the conference to date, in which he related the troubles of his small nation and stated that he approved the French proposals because of “the French blood in Hayti.” For Germany, Ambassador Nadolny submitted the proposals outlined previously by Chancellor Bruening. Germany rejected the draft treaty and urged abolition of all combatant air forces, of conscription, of frontier forts, and of forts, such as Gibraltar, that command natural waterways between seas. It was proposed that all capital ships be abolished and that naval forces be confined to cruisers and destroyers. A capital ship was defined as any ship over 6,000 tons or one mounting guns larger than six inches; a cruiser as one of 800 to 6,000 tons with 4- to 6-inch guns. The limits for a destroyer were to be 800 tons and 4-inch guns. The tonnage limits in each category were to be as small as possible, making armed navies little more than police forces. As any nation bordering on the sea could afford such a navy, the result would be the “equality” for which Germany asked.
The United States, Japan, and Great Britain submitted written proposals to the secretariat of the conference. The United States proposals were the same as those previously given by Mr. Gibson, except that the suggestion was made that the basis for calculation of numbers of land forces required be based on the number now allowed the Central Powers. Japan presented some carefully worded proposals similar to those previously given. The request for reduction in size of capital ships was repeated, as well as that providing for abolition of bombing planes and aircraft carriers. Great Britain’s proposals contained a suggestion that the question of a reduction in size of capital ships be considered, without making any direct demand for this. The opposition of the United States to this idea at London has deterred her from making any definite attempt to push it at Geneva.
A summary of the proposals made by the fifty-seven nations present, as stated in the New York Times, shows that a majority favor restrictions of aerial bombardment, particularly of civilians; practically all favor the abolition of gas and bacteriological warfare. In naval matters, five favor the suppression of submarines; more wish for a limitation of their tonnage and radius. The other proposals are many and varied, all of them are of a nature to arouse controversy. In all each nation submitted an average of seven proposals, so that there is a total of over three hundred of them to be discussed. If free discussion is allowed it is easy to see that the conference could remain in session for years, unless it breaks up over some vital question.
Of course there is no intention of holding a lengthy discussion of all proposals, as many are frankly idealistic and impractical. Those who look for the best in this “best of all worlds” maintain that the great majority of the opening speeches were made for the purpose of conciliating nationalistic or idealistic opinion at home, and that, once committee sessions are begun in secret, many will be dropped without further argument. They point out that now that Hindenburg has undoubtedly been re-elected the Germans will not be under the necessity of avoiding criticism from the Nationalist and Nazi parties, and can get down to real facts. French elections occur in April, too. There may be some truth in this contention.
February 24 was a dangerous day. It was necessary for the conference to decide on some plan of procedure so that the technical committees might go ahead and start work with some definite end in view. The draft treaty, the result of six years’ work and argument in the Preparation Commission, lay ready for action. Germany had refused to consider this because its text contains a reaffirmation of the limits put on her armaments by the Versailles Treaty. M. Tardieu insisted that it had to be accepted as written, or else abandoned for the French plan. As this draft is the only tangible thing the conference has to work with, its rejection would open up endless possibilities for debate and controversy. Sir John Simon came over from London. He conferred in private with representatives of all shades of opinion. No one knows what arguments were used, but at the afternoon session he proposed that the conference instruct the committees to go ahead on the basis of the draft treaty, with the reservation that each delegation might make any proposal it desired and that the committee could alter it by “addition, amendment, or omission” as considered advisable. The word “omission” satisfied the Germans. M. Tardieu also accepted the British proposal “without reservation” but added at “the columns (of the draft) must be retained and the blanks filled in.” Whatever he meant by this, his consent postponed a public trial of strength and possible adjournment of the conference.
Apparently feeling that a small committee can reach a decision quicker than a large one, Mr. Gibson proposed that the “bureau” (committee of two presidents and fourteen vice-presidents) attempt to perform its function of steering committee by outlining the procedure and getting things under way for consideration by the technical committees. Protests were made by nations not represented, and the matter was added to the list to be considered by the general committee, whenever that committee will be able to act.
On February 25 some real progress was made. M. Litvinoff made a long public speech demanding total disarmament and rejection of the draft, which proposal was not approved. It was then that Senor de Madariaga told his now well-known story concerning the attempt of the animals to disarm with the bear proposing abolition of all weapons but “universal embraces.” In the afternoon M. Tardieu spoke and requested that the proposed plan of having separate technical committees to consider air, land, and sea armaments be scrapped and that committees be formed to consider effectives of all kinds, material and expenditure. No objection could be made to this plan on the ground of logic, but its adoption would involve a regrouping of the technical assistants and cause further delay. Furthermore France is one of the few nations that places all its armed force under one minister, and other nations would have great difficulty in making a similar arrangement. Although this plan was rejected, M. Tardieu gained his main point which was to have the general committee consider political questions and questions of security on the same basis as the technical questions, that is in executive session.
These decisions having been made it was possible to start the technical committees on certain phases of their work, using the draft treaty as a basis. A number of meetings have been held and some work has been accomplished, but the large number of political questions that must be settled before these committees can accomplish much real work makes progress slow.
The general committee met on March 1 to consider the material collected by Dr. Benes, who had taken a copy of the draft treaty and placed, one alongside the other, all proposals submitted to the conference by the several nations; for instance, the original opening paragraph was shown with the changes proposed in the plans of France, Italy, Germany, etc., all in conflict with one another. At the end of the day’s meeting the draft was returned to Dr. Benes with a request that he eliminate all the impractical matter and then return it again to the committee. Any further meetings up to the time of going to press have probably been in executive session and have not been reported.
The magnitude of the problem before the committee, aside from the mere mass of the proposals, can easily be imagined. For instance, is the question of the limitation in size of submarines one for the technical committees to consider, or is it one of purely political nature? It is on matters such as these that previous conferences have argued and failed to reach any agreement.
The propaganda sections have not forgotten the American public. Several addresses have been made over the radio. Dr. Mary E. Woolley was expected to make one on February 28, but was ill with a cold. Her place was taken by Mrs. Margaret Corbett Ashby of Great Britain, who declared that the problem of reaching an agreement was simpler than most people thought. She closed by declaring that the women of the conference were picturing the next generation, their “sons free from the horror of killing one another.”
The newspaper correspondents complain that the climate of Geneva is too cold and raw and that the city lacks places to which a stranger can go for recreation. One, Mr. Farmer Murphy of the Baltimore Sun, proposed that the conference be adjourned to Vienna where delegates could gather in cafes and discuss matters amicably. He felt that there was too much seriousness in the air at Geneva. Geneva papers retorted that at least their air was “pure” and there the matter rested. Perhaps the coming of spring will bring about a change of heart.
The cabinet crises in France and the approaching elections have made it necessary for M. Tardieu to spend most of his time in Paris. This has slowed up the work of the conference particularly in the matter of the organization of the work and the consideration of political matters. The Assembly of the League of Nations has been holding regular sessions to consider matters in the Far East. As many of the delegates to the conference are also members of the assembly it is not always possible for regular meetings to be held because the assembly takes precedence. It is planned that the conference take a two-week recess over the Easter holidays so that little is probable that little will be done during the remainder of the month.