ATTITUDE OF U.S.A.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 May 1933, Page 5

ATTITUDE OF U.S.A.

ON DISARMAMENTS

ANNOUNCEMENT AT GENEVA.

(Per British Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, May 22

The attitude of the United States towards the problems before the DisaraJ.unent Conference was revealed by Mr Davis, at a meeting cf the General Committee at Geneva. Features-of the United States pronouncement were: Whole-hearted acceptance of the British plan; tan undertaking to consult with other nations if peace were threatened; a premise that if the United States concurs in the judgment of a. conference of States as to the (aggressor, she will refrain from action .tending to defeat the measures that may lie taken to restore peace; willingness to participate in disarmament supervision, such control to be effective, automatic,’and permanent; insistence on the territorial status puo, and opposition to rearmament.

In a significant passage, Mr Davis said: The situation admits of no further delay. The nations must either go forward in good faith, and carry out the disarmament policy adopted in 1919, or wo must frankly recognise its abandonment, and reconcile ourselves to reverting to an armaments race, leading inevitably to another war.

DECLARATION INTERPRETED,

OFFER. TO FOREIGN NEUTRALITY

GENEVA, May 23.

The American delegate, Mr Davis’ declaration means that the United States is re'adv to forego the jealonslycherishod rights of neutrality, provided that sh,?, concurs in a judgment deciding who is an aggressor. Mr Davis, suggested as the definition of aggressor, “One whose armed forces are found on .alien soil in violation of treaties ” The commitment which he enumerated -would go almost to the limit that might reasonably be expected from America. ' They do not promise everything that the countries fearing to reduce their armaments would like. These countries ' are, naturally, sceptical about the value of the promise of assistance implied in an • abandonment of neutrality when that promise is qualified in the phrase “If we concur’' -in the judgment as to the aggressor: but it is recognised that Mr. Davis’ definition of <?,n aggressor removes the worst doubts aroused by the “ifs.” The groat merit of Mr Davis’ speech is a plain statement of exactly what America will do. The European nations now know exactly whore they stand. The American circles resented the French delegate, M. Bonoour’s speech, his suggested procedure being regarded ns a “mnneeuvre”; but it was indicated to-night that Mr Davis, who is to expedite the proceedings, may be reconciled to the French view to-

morrow. The unofficial Americans are disappointed that Sir John Simon did not more warmly pay a tribute to the American declaration showing a great departure 'front the traditional United States policy, but the American delegation are satisfied with the British attitude.