Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1932. PROGRESS AT GENEVA.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 205, 30 July 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1932. PROGRESS AT GENEVA.

With the adoption of a resolution placing- on record the agreements readied, the first stage of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva has concluded. Trom this distance it may seem that the delegates and their experts have accomplished very little in the six months since they assembled, but an examination of the resolution reveals that progress has' been made. Nevertheless, the chairman of the Conference (Mr Arthur Henderson) cannot yet express himself as wholly satisfied with the measure of achievement. Unless the Governments translated theory into practice, he said the other day, the Conference would not agree to the final treaty, and this would be disastrous. Many other good people who have placed their hopes in Geneva for a world of peace, and for relief from the crushing burden of expenditure by the nations on armaments, have expressed the same views. It has, however, not been smooth sailing for the Conference. There has been difficulty in findingsatisfactory formulas, principals have been called away to other important gatherings, political unrest in Trance and Germany has- been a disturbing influence, while even Mr Hoover’s proposals for substantial disarmament were an unforeseen development. The draft resolution placed before the General Commission by Sir John Simon and Dr Denes is a reminder of what has been done while other epochal events have held the stage of world interest. This resolution is visible evidence of a certain achievement in furthering the ideals of peace, and leads to the hope that the nations will record _ still greater progress. In making a forceful appeal to the delegates to vote for it, Sir John Simon said its first object was to record progress : secondly, to acknowledge President Hoover’s stirring call, and, thirdly, to prepare the way for the second phase of the Conference.

The resolution is, therefore, a step forward towards disarmament. It covers the agreements made for the limitation of land, naval and air armaments. On the question_ of heavy land artillery, the principle has been accepted that there should be a limitation of calibre in accordance with a later convention. There are also maximum limits for coastal, fortress, and mobile land guns. Important among the agreements is the question of air warfare. There is provision for an absolute prohibition of aerial attacks against civil populations, and for the contracting parties coming to an agreement to abolish air bombing. When recognition is g-iven to the tremendous advance in the efficiency and range of aircraft since the war,

and to the terrible devastation that can be wrought by poison gases and bombs let loose upon an innocent people, purely noncombatants, the imperative need for agreement upon this question is brought into sharper perspective. It is a matter for pleasure, therefore, that unanimity has been reached to outlaw air attacks against civilians, and to prepare for an agreement for the abolition of air bombing. Chemical, bacterial, and incendiary warfare are also prohibited. The Great War revealed the diabolical nature of chemical warfare and its use by the Germans aroused horror throughout the civilised world. It is a form that not only causes intense suffering, but outrages every sense of decency and chivalry in mankind. The same may be said of bacterial warfare. In its other aspects the work covered by the resolution is most encouraging. The Budgetary Committee is continuing its studies of the limitations of armaments expenditure, and the Standing Orders Committee is examining President Hoover’s proposals, with consideration for the requirements of nations for their defence. On the question of naval disarmament, the parties to the Washington and London Treaties will confer upon what can be further achieved. The substance of the resolution gives hope for a treaty ultimately between the Powers, even though its contents may not go so tar as promoters of the Conference desire. Mr Henderson, in pointing to the great difficulty jL adjusting the viewpoints of (vF nations, says this is not an impossibility. Meanwhile, the experts are continuing their task in preparation for the next phase of the Conference.