TRAFFIC IN ARMS

Northern Advocate, 10 November 1934, Page 9

TRAFFIC IN ARMS

VESTED INTERESTS LABOUR RESOLUTION APPEAL TO BRITAIN. “SET AN EXAMPLE.” [British Official Wireless.] (Received 1 p.m.) RUGBY, November 8. The debate on private trade in arms occupied the attention of the House of Commons today. The debate was raised on a Labour resolution, moved by Major Attlee. It was in the following terms:— “That this House endorses the view expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations that the manufacture of munitions of war by private enterprise is open to grave objection, regrets the absence of any international agreement to deal with this admitted evil, and is of opinion that Britain should set an example by prohibiting forthwith all private manufacture of and trade in armaments by British nationals, and by making provision for the production by the State of such armaments and munitions oi war as are considered necessary.’* Major Attlee argued that the existence of vested interests in the arms trade tended to frustrate the efforts of the wiser statesmen of the world to create world order. He believed that the right course was to nationalise all armaments production and to have a nucleus capable of expansion. , Sir John Simon said that the Government had been glad to find Parliamentary time for this important subject, which outside the House had often been treated as though it were a simple .issue on which a conclusion could be reached almost automatically by anyone who was not either a fool or a knave. Conditions Explained. They had to proceed on the basis that arms were going to be produced by the State. A private armaments firm on the other hand has its skilled staff? its organisations and its machinery, and was capable of proceeding rapidly from the level of peace production to maximum war production. That was the essence of this arrangement, arid only by that means was it possible to bridge the gap which widened at a terrific rate between peace production and demand once war again visited the world. It was a need for producing a certain quantity of armaments, and that side of its business could not, in fact, be maintained without foreign orders. If tfyey were to be plunged into the calamity of war, then these armament firms and private shipyards, owing to 1 their previous organisation and their acquired aptitude, were able to switch over very suddenly almost to unlimited expansion in time of war, which made the conception of Government monopoly so difficult to apply. Whatever might be the lessons which ought to be drawn from the late war, he could not think that they ; ought to put their trust in State fac- ■ tories and wait until they were in war * before anyone else was called upon. * Major Attlee wished them to set an ! exarnple and would like other people to follow it, but if that were done not ! only would there be no supplies by their own armament firms, but they , would be unable to make any pur- ' chases from foreign sources, because , one State which was at peace could j not provide arms from its own ar- ! senals to a State at war without in- ! volving itself in that war. ' States which had no internal pro- j duction of arms would not only be 1 obliged to set up their own factories, ; but would have to accumulate a great : stock, so that they might feel more secure. Control of Exports. The Commission that sat at Geneva in 1931 did not reach any conclusion 1 in favour of the abolition of the private manufacture of arms. The Bri- : tish had the most complete and stringent means of controlling the exports of any country in the world. No consignment of armaments could leave the couptry without a license. They never subsidised a private firm for the production of arms. They never allowed diplomatic or consular representatives abroad to act as travellers or canvassers for armament firms. It was Britain that took the ■initiative in placing an embargo on arms to Bolivia and Paraguay, which 28 exporting countries had now undertaken to observe. The remedy was by international agreement, and that the British Government was doing its utmost to promote. “If we on this Government Bench were not throwing our utmost energy into the cause of peace we should not merely be foolish beyond belief, we should be stark, staring lunatics. We know of the horror which another war would mean,” he declared.