DISARMAMENT IMPERILLED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 183, 4 August 1932, Page 6

DISARMAMENT IMPERILLED.

ARMS EXPERTS LEAD TO FAILURE

(By DONALD GRANT.)

GENEVA, June 11

"Shall a few thousand men decide that all the peoples be butchered like rabbits?'' Regarding the doings in the Disarmament Conference, this is the diagnosis of an ordinary chauffeur who often drives the delegates and the experts in Geneva. A few score men, in the expert commissions, during the past five or six weeks have brought the Disarmament Conference to its lowest level. The more realistic newspapers in Britain have already ridiculed the procedure of these commission/3—absurd and tragic as it is.

Let us consider what has been going on. About the end of April the task of deciding which weapons are "specially offensive" was handed over by the General Commission to the commissions of experts. On April 22 Sir John Simon's proposal for qualitative disarmament received the backing of the great majority of the conference, and actually, with the French amendment, was adopted unanimously. On April 25 Admiral Pound (expert), for Britain, pointed out ill the Naval Commission that the Simon proposal did not apply to the sea! Later, in the same commission, Great Britain, U.S.A. and Japan (experts) resisted the application of the Simon proposal and stood out for the thesis that the monster battleships are not "offensive." All other States (experts) say they are. Result: No progress. Further, this obstructive attitude is. imitated by other States. France, for instance (experts), used for the retention of tanks the same argument that Britain used for the retention of capital ships—the statement that for attack they could not be used alone without other armaments, and that they are needed for defence. The British (experts) have made clear that they regard military aircraft as defensive, and now, early in June, it appears that Britain (experts) will concede that enormous tanks, over 25 tons, may be regarded as "offensive" weapons. (But tanks, capital ships and all military airships were prohibited for Germany, who can well claim even to-day the moral right to use the same arguments put forward now by. the experts of Great Britain, of France and of U.S.A. Only the application to other Powers of the same prohibition imposed upon Germany by the Versailles Treaty will satisfy informed public opinion in its desire for security and its sense of justice.)

An instructive example of the ideas and the language used in the commissions is found in the speech made at Geneva by Lord Stanhope, Under-Secretary of State for War (Great Britain). This peroration, for instance: "The definite proposal of the United Kingdom delegation is that we should recommend to the General Commission that the armoured fighting vehicles possessing the most definitely offensive character are those from approximately 2.) tons upwards. Below that tonnage (say, about 20 tons) we feel that their characteristics become markedly less offensive in character, and armies should be allowed to retain these weapons to enable them to continue to economise in man-power and expenditure, and to be able to employ these weapons for ordinary police work in the colonies and elsewhere. In accepting the considerable sacrifices which such a prohibition would involve, the United Kingdom delegation believes that the elimination of this specially destructive type of weapon from the battlefield of the future would represent a substantial contribution to the Strengthening of the defences in relation to the attack, and as such would constitute a substantial contribution to the cause of disarmament." This kind of talk has been going on for weeks among the placid pipe-smoking men who gather day after day in halls P, G and II of the disarmament building. The experts do not agree among themselves. The public has forgotten that there is a Disarmament Conference.

The policy of disarmament enunciated with power and hope in February and March must not be rendered futile now by the behaviour of the experts acting under the instructions of their Departments. The genera] staffs know nothing of the power or the purpose of public opinion. In any case their function is to prepare for war and to retain armaments. The general staffs must not be allowed to scotch the hopes which still inspire millions of people. The commissions of experts have had their innings, and they have failed to do anything for the cause of disarmament. The questions they have not resolved must now be tackled in earnest by the General Commission of the conference, with its special political power as the main organ of the conference.

In the General Commission it is the disarmament policies of the Governments (not of Department) which, deterin.ine the course of events. In order to strengthen the Genera] Commission find to seize what is probably the last chance to save the conference, the Governments must at once make up their minds to pursue now a policy of real reduction. The policy of Britain in this matter of such grave importance cannot bo left to the Admiralty and the general staff. Now is the crucial moment when pressure must be brought to bear upon our Government to take, a lead in disarmament, and definitely to stand for the abolition, for. all States, of the aggressive weapons prohibited to Germany in the Versailles Treaty, including big battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines, heavy artillery, tanks, military aircraft, poison gas and the means of chemical warfare.