WAR WEAPONS: NEW AND MORE TERRIBLE

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 December 1946, Page 7

WAR WEAPONS: NEW AND MORE TERRIBLE

Reference at UNO Meeting

Deltaic on Disarmament

Resumed

(Rec. 10.55 a.m.) NEW YORK, December 2.

Senator Tom Connally (United States), resuming the disarmament debate in the Political and Security Committee, accused Russia of trying to “get rid of the atomic bomb” as a primary objective ,and then holding a veto over any .further disarmament steps. The United States, he said, would not agree to the Security Council’s “uncontrolled and unbridled action.”

Senator Connally made the charge that Russia was endeavouring to gain approval of a narrow and circumscribed disarmament programme, which would permit the continued use of other weapons of mass destruction, such as jet weapons and poison gas. He declared that there could not be international inspection and control if any member of the Security Council could veto the inspection. “That is not international control —that is individual control.” The United States opposed any interruption or interference in the Atomic Commission’s work. Russian Viewpoint.

Mr. Vyshinsky (Russia) said the outlawing of the atomic bomb was the main task, but Russia actually had emphasised the need for a general slashing of armaments, and was willing to specify all weapons. Mr. Vyshinsky did not mention the veto.

Sir Hartley Shawcross (Britain), after listening to a detailed account by Mr. Vyshinsky of Russia’s sufferings during the war, said it was unprofitable to enter into a profit-and-loss inventory of the war.

“The plain fact is that something like 20,000,000 people lost their lives in the war and it was not the atom bomb which killed them,” he declared. “We must prohibit the most terrible weapons, and we cannot say any longer that the atom bomb'is the most terrible of these weapons. They are not yet named, but their existence is not entirely unknown.”

Sir Hartley proposed the appointment of a sub-committee to begin immediately a detailed study of the Soviet, American, Australian and Canadian proposals on arms limitation.

Veto Power.

M. Parodi (France) said the question of the veto was being overemphasised. If any country used the veto to prevent inspection within its borders the whole question of disarmament would be reopened and other countries would resume liberty of action, which meant that all arms limitation proposals would be cancelled.

The committee decided to postpone the debate until to-morrow.