TRAFFIC IN ARMS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 307, 24 November 1934, Page 7

TRAFFIC IN ARMS

INQUIRY AT HOME. STATEMENT IN COMMONS. POINTS IN PROPOSAL. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph. —Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received November 24, 11.30 a.m. RUGBY, Nov. 23. ’The British Government has decided that an inquiry, shall be held into the question of the private manufacture of armaments. The inquiry will cover the following questions:— Is a State monopoly practicable or desirable F Is the existing system of licensing and control adequate and effective F Supposing the inquiry establishes that a btate monopoly would be desirable, would a State monopoly eliminate the possibilities of abuse to which the private, manufacture of arms is admittedly openF If a State monopoly is not practicable, what steps are necessary to deal with the abuses arising from the private manufacture ?

The proposed inquiry was announced in the House of Commons by Sir John Simon during the debate on the Address to the Throne. Its precise terms of reference have not yet been decided.

Its main purpose is expected to be. to investigate the subject of effective national control—the monopoly advocated in some quarters is held by others to be open to grave objections—and ascertain whether the system of licensing control existing in Britain works satisfactorily. The Foreign Secretary, in making the announcement, recalled that last May he proposed that the Disarmament Conference should tiy to embody in separate protocols topics taken out of the general draft convention, not as a substitute for disarmament but as a way of making progress. Mr Arthur Henderson bad now echoed that view and among the selected topics was the traffic in arms.

Britain had signed and ratified tho Arms Traffic Convention of 1925, which the others had neglected, but now that co-operation by the United States was assured the prospects of a general agreement were better than ever before. In any case, the 1925 convention dealt with the export, but not with the manufacture, of arms and was, therefore, not altogether fair to the non-manufacturing countries because all their importations would be recorded, but not the accumulations of the manufacturing States. Something more comprehensive was required. Tiiree points which must be included in any agreement were:—Firstly, tbe control o? the internal trade in arms, including the prohibition of subsidies and export credits, and the possibility of organising a general embargo on tbe supply of arms; secondly, the control of the national manufacture of arms through such systems as export licenses; thirdly, reasonable publicity.

A WRONG impression: THE RECENT SPEECH.* LONDON, Nov. 22. In the House of Commons Sir John Simon (Foreign Secretary) referring to his own speech on traffic in arms, said he desired in all sincerity to-express his consciousness that the speech had not conveyed the impression he had wished. J udging it not by the exact words, but by the impression created about it outside, he admitted that it must bs described as an unfortunate speech. Sir John Simon went on to point out that it was at his suggestion that the subject of control ot the arms ti affic was again raised at Geneva a few months ago. He now was glad to say that there was to be an opportunity of co-operating with the United States on the question. It was only fair to say that the Government had persistently worked for ail arms convention, and there now seemed a much better prospect of obtaining one than ever before. The Government would quite willingly hold an inquiry into the questions of .whether a State monopoly would be preferable to private manufacture and as to means which ought to lie adopted to prevent abuses in the sale of arms abroad.