Disarmament

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 233, 14 September 1922, Page 5

Disarmament

DISCUSSIONS AT GENOA. j CECIL’S PROPOSALS ADOPTED. FEW DISSENTING DELEGATES. [By Cable. —Press Association.—Copyright.] London, Sept. 13. The Australian Press Association’s correspondent reports that when the Disarmament Committee resumed last nigiit there was. a full attendance and general support for Lord Robert Cecil’s resolutions, except the Scandinavian delegates, who feared that the guarantees would necessitate increaseu armament, not for self-protection but to safeguard other members in the sama regional group. Mr. \\ . S. Fielding (Canada) pointed out that whatever the, committee decided upon he could not pledge Canada to enter any pact that might involve fighting for some member of the same group. Notwithstanding treaties and guarantees the Canadian Parliament must, in the last resort, decide whether Canada should render military assistance to any other member of a group. Any other policy would be in direct variance with the Canadian conception of self-government. He imagined the other British dominions would act and take similiar view. Lord Robert Cecil replied that Canada could not become a party to a pact except by the authority of the Canadian Parliament. If it did nob approve he would not sanction the compact. If it approved he presumed it would honour its pledge, the samp as they would expect other parties to the compact to honour theirs supposing Canada was attacked by an enemy. Mr. Mark §heldon moved the rejection of th© first of Lord Robert Cecil’s series of resolutions, which declared: “No scheme for the rwauction of armaments can ever be fully successful unless it is general.” Mr. Sheldon argued that Lord Cecil’s plpn contemplated a world-wide, organisation ot mutual defence. He had stated that disarmament would bo ineffective unless practically universal, which meant that small groups for mutual defence would be impossible except as part of the universal scheme. Disarmament would thus be held up until the whole world accepted the “policy, Why should not small groups of nations agree among themselves to roduce armaments and protect each other, regardless of the rest of the world ? He did not like and did not wish to bring his own country into the discussion, but might instance the South American republics. Why should no.t they form their own group and enter a contract for the reduction of armaments and mutual protection, not waiting until th© world was converted ? Many such small groups migfit be formed outside of Europe outside the danger zone. Therefore they would be able to discard costly armaments and rely on each other’s protection. The mere fact of disarming would itself be equal to mutual guarantees. A resolution that the reduction of armaments would be necessarily unsuccessful unless general would discourage the formation of small groups. Mr. Sheldon’s motion was overwhelmingly negatived. The Japanese representative explained that although they voted for Lord Robert Cecil’s resolution, his vote did not necessarily bind his Gevernment. . All Lord Robert Cecil’s resolutions wer© carried. —(A. and N.Z.)