10,000-TON LIMIT

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 169, 13 April 1932, Page 9

10,000-TON LIMIT

Warship Construction DISARMAMENT STEPS Scrap Aggressive Weapons PROPOSALS AT GENEVA (Rec. April 12, 10.40 *p.m.). Geneva, April 11. 'The Disarmament Conference's General Committee has resumed Its sessions. The chairman, Mr. Arthur Henderson, summarising progress, said that delegates generally were agreed as to the abolition of warships exceeding 10,000 tons. Many States favoured the total abolition of submarines, while interest had been shown in.the prohibition of air raids and bacteriological warfare. Mr. Hugh Gibson (United States) began by hinting that America was anxious that the conference should hasten its labours. He admitted that time would necessarily be expended in getting in operation the biggest conference the world had ever seen. Deal-> ing at length with the question of security, he said that this would not be restored “until we restored to defence that superiority over aggression which the world formerly enjoyed.” Mr. Gibson- then moved a resolution that the general committee believed that abolition of aggressive weapons should constitute the first and essential requisite of disarmament and accordingly called for the abolition of tanks, heavy mobile guns, and poison gas. He suggested that an agreement should be drafted on these lines. He emphasised that it was insufficient to adopt a resolution in principle. They needed a definite final agreement. He intimated his readiness later to advocate the abolition of bombing planes. Sir John Simon (Britain) supported the motion. He said that by the acceptance of this concrete, practical proposal the conference would abandon vague generalities. Britain was prepared to make sacrifice. The result of adoption of the resolution would in the first place be the accomplishment of disarmament, secondly a great reduction in military budgets, and thirdly the removal of the most aggressive weapons, thus giving states a feeling of security. The Italian delegate, who was supported by Mr. Henderson, said that it was necessary the proposal should go before the bureau of the conference. M. Tardieu (France), Criticising Mr. Gibson, contended that the French proposals went much further than the American proposal, which applied solely to land weapons and was therefore contrary to the French argument concerning the interdependence of armaments. Moreover, it disregarded the control of sanctions.