BELGIAN CLAIM FOR SECURITY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20470, 13 February 1932, Page 15

BELGIAN CLAIM FOR SECURITY.

, THE SOVIET POINT OF VIEW. j innxTisu omciit wipjsw.ss.; RUGBY, February .11. Addressing the Disarmament Conference,. M. Paul Hymans . (Belgium) said the solution of the problem , regarding compulsory arbitration and cooperation would greatly increase the chances of real disarmament, and disarmament was the only thing which would bring to the world any relaxation of tension and general appeasement. They could not ask the peoples to renounce armed defence unless they were afforded protection against aggression. M. Ilyinans agreed to Sir .lolm Simon's and Mr Hugh Gibson's propositions. He said Belgium's natural disadvantages had made security of supremo importance. Belgium would support any measure to strengthen the League's authority. He declared that another armaments race would lead to war,-revolution, and ruin, and advocated the abolition of j bombing aeroplanes, long-range guns, and chemical and bacteriological war- ! fare. , Equal Bights. ! :.\I. Litviuoff (Soviet representative) ! stated that the Soviet delegation in j 1929 had been the first to suggest the ' destruction of the most aggressive typoa of armaments, including tanks, longrange guns, warships over 10,000 tons displacement, naval guns over 12-inch cal'bre, aircraft-carriers, military dirigibles, bombing aeroplanes, and all means and apparatus for chcriiical, incendiary, and bacteriological warfare. They now further proposed the prohibition of aerial bombing and preparation for bacteriological warfare in peace j time. , i-l M.. Litvinoff demanded complete dis- j armament, and recommended a progres- j sive proportional method as the most impartial means of reduction. He supported the thesis of equal rights for all participants in the conference, and . cjual security for all States. Despite , the proximity of the. Far" Eastern dis- I turbance, the Soviet was prepared to . disarm ttf the same extent as. other | ■Powers. . j The Soviet, he said, required no , armed forces, but did require assurances j against the transgression of her..territorial integrity and interferences with her international economic development, The Soviet would only foci that she had such an assurance if the other States also agreed to give up armed forces.