TRAFFIC IN ARMS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21330, 24 November 1934, Page 13

TRAFFIC IN ARMS

Convention Possible BRITAIN'S WILLINGNESS TO AGREE (UKTTED FtIF.SS ASSOCIATION—BY ELECTJIIC TELZGBAPII—COPYRIGHT.) (Received November 23, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, November 22. Sir John Simon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, referring in the House of Commons to-day to his recent speech on the arms traffic, said he desired in all sincerity to express his feeling that the speech had not conveyed the impression he had wished. Judging it not by the exact words, but by the impression created about it outside Parliament, he admitted it must be described as an unfortunate speech. Sir John went on to explain that it was at his suggestion that the subject of control of the arms traffic was again raised at Geneva a few months ago. He was now glad to say there was to be an opportunity of co-operating with the United States on the question. It was only fair to say that the Government had persistently worked for an arms convention. Now-there seemed to be a much better prospect of obtaining one than ever before. The Government would quite willingly hold an enquiry into the questions of whether state monopoly would be preferable to private manufacture, and the means which ought to be adopted to prevent abuses in the sale of arms abroad. [The House of Commons recently debated the subject of the private trade in arms. Sir John Simon, on November 8, said Parliament had to proceed on the basis that arms were going to be produced by the state. A private armaments firm, on the other hand, had its skilled staff, its organisation, and its machinery. I*. was producing a certain quantity of armaments, and that side of its business could not in fact be maintained without foreign orders. If the world was to be plunged into the calamity of war, then these armament firms and private shipyards, because of their previous organisation and their acquired aptitude would bo able 1o switch over very rapidly from their level of peace production to their maximum war production. That was the essence of this arrangement, and only by that means was it possible to bridge the gap, which widened at a terrific rate once war again visited the world, between peace production and demand. It was the need for a sudden and almost unlimited expansion in time of war which made the conception of a government monopoly so difficult to apply.] .