COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

Grey River Argus, 22 March 1928, Page 5

COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

ISSUE SIDE-STEPPED By Cushendun IN DRAMATIC OUTBURST AGAINST SOVIET. 1... id Cushendun caused a mild sen- > ' ion at ihe Disarmament Commission when he declared: “For years, the soviet has sought to promote civil wars everywhei I would like to know if it has changed that policy.” Lord ('iishemlun unmea-ui <ally condemned the Soviet policy, ami questioned th • ’ olives in bri’ gitig down a di .a rum men t plan, after ignoring and re'.iliii". the Teague for seven years. He said ;hal complete disarmament wouid be accepted by everyone as an ideal. Iml he would have liked M. Lit\iiioir to show how it might be done. It v. a not worthy that none of Rus sin’s sixty three articles recognised the Lcaguo of Nations but instead proposed hat all disputes bp settled by a p‘ rinaneiit international cominitlee of control, which whs entirely a new body. Personally, he was not I H parcd to a party to any sabotage of Russian propo.-als because they detailed careful examination. Indeed, il there were any -ab-dage it was Russia's saholag - of the League of Nations. He asked if the Soviet Govern mcnl were going to | r:i<dice what it preached. The Soviet Government says it desires peace, but what sort of p<ace? The Soviet Government must recognise it- own attitude was onp °f the greatest obstacles to general disGeneral TTarinis (Daly) pointed oui it must b ■ remembered that some countries ware able because of wealth and .conomic advantage to r(‘-arm a.i any given moment with greater promptitude than the smaller and poorer .M. Clauzel (France) thought it necessary I" examine the new proposals in relation to .the draft convention upon wh.ch the League was already working. VKcoiiiit Sato (Japan) considered the Soviet’s project, incompatible with ihe Covenant of the League of Nations. Japan could not accept the thesis that the project would guarantee complete seen rity. Lord Ua-hemlun admitted that Ihe progress of disarmament hud been slow but the League had had no assistance fi<» \ Russia. Several articles in the Soviet (.raft involved the repeal or modilicatian of the (’ove.iant. He cx- [ re.-, ed the opinion that the Council of ihe League would never ask the As raiiuv to ihauge the ('ovenant to Then add re; sing LitvinolT p.-rsoiiallv. p, .-aid: “ i’here art* two kinds of war —civil ami international. Is the {Soviet really going to change its policy? Has it decided against civil war, and is I,: no longer going to interfere in the affairs of other countries, including the mandated countries?” Alluding to the proposal for armed frontier j olice, he commented that British police carried only a truncheon. Another article suggested ihe carrying of a revolver for personal defence. This was a strange provision for a civilised country in the Twentieth Century. He avus surprised that the Soviet should propose to place the duly of a state in the hands of the individual. The proposal Io destroy Look's dealing with war, meant, the loss oi Caesar’s Gallic War, and even the life of Napoleon. Regarding Ihe navy, he was technically advised that the type of ship suggest ml for policing the seas would be unfit and inadequate. Lord Cushendun completely took the wind out of the sails of Litvinoff by treating Ihe Soviet proposals for world disarmament as worthy of analysis. It was apparent that ihis w r as the most destructi\e method. He first praised (heir originality, ami imagination, and then proceeded to discuss and criticise each article in turn, for ninety minutes. lie showed that even in connect.on with the suppression of pirates and slave traders on the high seas, it would require high speed vessels and th st class officers and crew s, the training of whom woul.p be prevented under the Soviet, draft.