BRITISH VIEW ON ARMS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21084, 8 February 1934, Page 9

BRITISH VIEW ON ARMS

Statement by Sir John Simon A NEW MOVE HOPES FOR COMPROMISE PLAN (jmn-isH orricur, wib»u»s».) (Received February 7, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, February 6. The British Government has arranged that as soon as the French political situation allows, Mr R. A. Eden, Lord Privy Seal, will proceed to Paris, Rome, and Berlin to explain the British view on disarmament and learn by direct contact the attitude of other governments to the new British memorandum. This announcement was made in the House of Commons to-day by Sir John Simon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, during the disarmament debate. The debate took place at the request of the Opposition, which showed no desire to censure the Government for its conduct of the recent negotiations or for the substance of the new British memorandum, but which wished to enjoin upon the Government the importance of pursuing with the greatest possible vigour the policy stated in that document.

Sir John Simon, in a frank analysis of the situation, dealt with the four important documents recently published, the French aide-memoire, the German memorandum, the Italian memorandum, and the British memorandum. He said the Government had reached the following conclusions:—

(1) That the confidential bilateral interchanges had been useful, but that after two months the method was in danger of exhausting its utility. (2) That although differences still existed there was a greater approach to common ground, which justified the British Government in making its new efforts of reconciliation. From the interchanges it had emerged in the clearest way that the key to a disarmament arrangement, at any rate in Western Europe, must lie in finding accommodation between France and Germany. British Position. "Great Britain has a special interest in this matter," he said, "for it is certain that if a satisfactory disarmament agreement cannot be promptly reached, and if we have to live in a world of unlimited rearmament, we shall have to face the question of the state of our own armaments."

The British memorandum was not a document putting forward the ideal plan, but was an attempt to approach the actual situation in a spirit of realism and provide a basis for promoting an agreement. From this standpoint two inevitable deductions were reached.

First, Germany's claim to arms equality could not and ought not to be resisted. Second, no practical solution could be found on the basis that all nations of the world would immediately abandon all weapons denied to Germany by the Peace Treaty.

The choice was between no reduction in armaments at all or a treaty providing for some moderate and reasonable programme of abandonment of the biggest weapons by the most heavily-armed powers. Germany, in her document, had assumed that nobody would abandon anything. "The British Government would view not only with reluctance, but even with repugnance, a settlement which provided, it might be, for a full equality of rights, but provided for it without any disarmament in any corner of the world," said Sir John. Such a conclusion it would resist with all its might. Regarding effectives, the British Government insisted on the principle of parity among France, Germany, Italy, and Poland. German Armaments. Regarding land war materials, it was prepared to accept Germany's own proposals as to the equipment of her short-service army, but it was a mistake to suppose that it conceded to, or indeed that Germany suggested, the authorisation of further weapons to the existing German military organisation. Regarding tanks, he called attention to the proposal tl£it an international tank enquiry should take place within three years, in which Germany should participate. Regarding air armaments, it was clear to the British Government that if Germany were permitted to set up a military air force at a moment when the possibility of the complete abolition of military aircraft was being discussed it would be to the manifest disadvantage of that most important convention. As to supplementary formations the Government felt that the question of what constituted military effectives could be settled on practical lines of good faith by the Permanent Disarmament Commission. On the subject of security Sir John Simon called attention to the further articles included in the memorandum, and emphasised the duty of all the signatories to the convention, if it were signed, of keeping in closest touch with each other and doing whatever was right or possible to prevent or remedy any violation of so important an international agreement.

Sir John Simon described the recently signed German-Polish agreement as a very material consideration.

Proceeding, he expressed the hope that the British memorandum would be recognised as formulating definite methods whereby disarmament could begin immediately. If implemented it would unquestionably be not only a provision for the next 30 years, but might afford a strong and

firm hope of greater things in the future. He believed the whole House would support the Government's action. Every fresh delay made the solution of the disarmament problem more difficult.

If the world were thrown into the competition of unrestricted armaments they must face the fact and act accordingly, but their first duty was to do all in their power toward reaching an agreement.