Foreign Policy

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 178, 13 July 1927, Page 6

Foreign Policy

Sir A. Chamberlain’s Review. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE. (British Official Wireless). Rugby, July 11. The Foreign policy was reviewed in the HaTusc of Commons to-day by JjJir Austen Chamberlain, during a debate raised on the motion of Mr Arthur Ponsonby (La. Brightside) who was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Labour Administration. Dealing with the position of the League of Nations in world affairs, Sir Auste’h Chamberlain rebutted the suggestion that secondary matters were being relegated to the League and that the real business was conducted in secret. He had attended every meeting of the Council an<i had been present for some time at each meeting of the Assembly since he became Foreign Secretary, and there was practically a concensus of opinion that the League and the Council were stronger to-day than they were three years ago, and that the atmosphere was more peaceful. Questions, which could not then be discussed, were now discussed in a spirit of friendly cooperation.

PRIVATE MEETING AT GENEVA.

He recalled the circumstances of a private meeting at Geneva called by him at the suggestion of Dr. Stresemann and M. Briand at which he explained the reasons which had led to the Government’s rupture with Russia. He had explained that the Government neither desired to push their differences further nor to invite any other Power to change its policy. The only question for discussion at the Council which was raised privately was the admission of a German citizen to the commission on mandates, as Dr Strcseraann wished to test the feeling before making a formal proposition regarding disarmament. NAVAL ARMAMENTS. Sir Austen Chamberlain did not snare the gloomy views expressed in some quarters and he did not abandon hope that substantial reductions in naval armaments would result from the conference now in session. Obviously, he could not enter into a detailed exposition of the British case now being discussed at Geneva, but the British delegation had gone out with a carefully thought-out plan for further limitation of naval armaments. The extent of the proposals might lie measured by this single fact, that for years to come they would, if adopted by the others, mean a reduction of naval expenditure, which Britain would otherwise have to incur, of a sum nearer £50,000,000 than £40,000,000. TOTAL TONNAGE.

The question of total tonnage loomed largo in the press but in the mind of the Government that question by itself was insignificant and would be ineffective in checking armaments unless upon th e number of ships which have the most aggressive character. It was unthinkable that we should enter into competition with the United States in any race for armament.

“Wo do not attempt to suggest that in any class of vessels they may not enjoy parity without criticism or objection from us, they think their needs require it. For our part, we seek only to secure that special protection which is vital to an Empire peculiarly constituted on the lowest scale that we can arrange with the other naval Powers, so that our burdens, and theirs, may be lightened and the menace of "war automatically reduced. REAL STEP FORWARD. ‘U hope and believe that from the Coolidge Conference may come proposals which will mark a real step •forward in the limitation of naval competition, and that, encouraged by that example, a new stimulus may be given to larger international conferences to consider not merely naval, but land and all, armaments.”