It is difficult to see, therefore, unless penalties be actually incurred for the existing breach, why Article IV would be a serious deterrent for the future.
A trenchant comparison is afforded by the motive for this Treaty Article, and the actual operation of other Articles which should support it.
The Treaty makers thought it necessary to give direct reference to chemical warfare. They issued a special edict against its use. This alone should have guided those responsible for the execution of the Disarmament Clauses of the Treaty, measures of general application to the means of production of the different types of weapon. Have the special plants erected for poison gas received drastic action under the Treaty? It is to be feared that they and other war chemical plants of the I.G. have received undeserved immunity.
Where lies our help apart from the Treaty? World peace depends upon disarmament. True peace must come from a radical change in the outlook and sentiment of individuals. The forces working through these channels are the real peacemakers. But a League of Nations can forward the cause by wise measures of disarmament, and this implies limiting war producing capacity. The weak point in such a scheme is the organic chemical industry. There must be a redistribution of capacity, for while Germany retains a vast world monopoly of potential organic chemical munitions, which fed the armaments of the past with explosives and poison gas, and to which the weapons of the future are looking for inspiration and sustenance, disarmament will be a hollow farce.
The League of Nations may succeed in rooting out the means of production of certain munitions. But organic chemical factories must survive for the sake of their material contribution to the welfare of humanity. They cannot be inspected and controlled, as we have shown, and there is only one sound solution. The obstacle to peace must be removed by decentralising the organic chemical factories. We cannot leave this monopoly in the hands of any country. It now lies a weapon ready to the hands of those who created and wielded it with such success. Redistributed, this dangerous productive grouping will create a source of stability and strength to a League of Nations, and will invite a national sense of security, so essential to peace and disarmament under the present regime. This has only one meaning, the establishment of dye industries in Allied countries. This may clash with certain political schools of thought developed before the war without a due realisation of the organic way in which production links up with national defence. But let there be no misunderstanding. The refusal to support this critical industry is a definite sacrifice of vital national issues. Political principles responsible for such opposition no longer merit the name; they have become a fetish.
Our armies repelled the German chemical attack. They stood and fell unprotected before the early German clouds and unprotected again before the vile contact of mustard gas. The awful price they paid for our safety demands that we do more than rest contented with the sacrifice. It is an imperative and patriotic duty to the fallen, to the future of the race, and to the Empire, that, faced once again with modern war, we should be able to say, "every possible precaution was taken." But the chief precaution will have been neglected unless organic chemical industries are fostered on Imperial soil.
But what of chemical warfare itself? It is a growth, malignant or otherwise, according to our creeds, which will continue until very definite steps be taken to suppress it, with all war. Therefore, urgent guarantees for national safety are absolutely essential until the web of peace is strongly organised, which cannot be until the immediate menace of the monopoly in production is removed. But even then, until the general peace is fairly implanted, we must be ready for any surprise from an unscrupulous enemy. Research and training in chemical protection must be continued, and this can only be ensured by keeping abreast with offensive chemical warfare. "The Struggle for the Initiative" has at least established this.
Each nation and any League of Nations must seriously face the question of the establishment of elaborate and complex chemical warfare organisations. It seems to me that the logical course of thought and action is as follows. If guarantees are forthcoming, internationally, removing this grave German chemical warfare threat through her manufacturing monopoly, then the need for a definite chemical striking force and organisation will be greatly reduced. National safety is itself a corollary of world disarmament. But if satisfactory guarantees were forthcoming it would be consistent with national safety to limit the chemical warfare equipment of each nation to what would actually represent a scientific military brain. So long as national ministries for war or defence exist, they must possess even under the most stringent disarmament conditions, fully accredited within their regular staffs, an individual or individuals with scientific and military training, who represent knowledge, vision, and the power to expand in chemical warfare. What would be said of a great nation not equipped to think for the future on naval or artillery questions? Technical naval and military minds have evolved for these purposes. We are not slow to judge and act on the value of a new ship, tank, or machine-gun. The chemical arm is even more specialised and demands the same combination of scientific and military thinking and training. Whatever international disarmament decisions may be forthcoming, unless they seriously dismember the Defence Ministries, we should ensure that the pre-war position is corrected and that our staff conception and organisation covers the chemical weapon.
One alone of the Allied and Associated Powers was able to see the chemical menace with clear and unprejudiced vision. This was America, for she not only entered the war less hampered by traditions than the rest, but at a period when the chemical war was in full blast. More than a quarter of all her casualties were due to "gas," and no other arm produced as many in her ranks. As a result, we see America establishing an independent peace Chemical Warfare Service, as sister service to the Infantry and Artillery. This can only be interpreted as a frank realisation of the place of chemical warfare and of the need for serious international guarantees in the present situation.
Let us take a balanced view of the facts, realise the unique significance of chemical warfare and chemical industry, for war and disarmament, and act accordingly.