BRITISH POLICY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 2 December 1927, Page 5

BRITISH POLICY

GENEVA, Ist December. The Security Committee elected M. Benes president. Litvinoff attended as an observer. _ M. Politis (Greece) defended the principles of the defunct Protocol and urged the, Committee to re-examine the objections thereto. Lord Cushendun, in reply, said : lam somewhat alarmed, at the use of the word Protocol, which I would have avoided for fear of another avalanche of literature thereon.” Britain did not object to an examination of objections to the Protocol but he doubted whether it would be useful. He emphasised that his replacing Lord Cecil did not involve a change in the British policy of the promotion and encouragement of disarmament, arbitration, and security. He urged tlie necessity for practical measures instead of generalisations. Britain was anxious to arrive at a result. , The sitting was adjourned. The Russians issued an addendum to Litvinoffs speech -which reiterates the arguments that the Great Powers anxiety to retain colonial possessions and markets caused war. It emphasises the resulting wastage of manpower and economic damage, and declares the Soviet army is only one-third the size of the Tsarist army, despite the fact that other armaments were increasing. It interpiets Lord Cecil’s recent statements as prool that even the Disarmament Conierenee produced strained relations, and adds the fear that a gigantic war involving greater disasters and suffering amply justified the Soviet’s propolis and provide the only solution. LONDON, Ist Dec. There was considerable comment at Geneva on the silence, of the British delegation throughout the proceedings. Lord Cushendun, in an interview, asked whv he had not participated, said • “I do not believe in talking when there is nothing to say. The business was supposed to have been entirely connected with procedure, ancl I have no exception to take to that. . • Asked his opinion regarding Litvinoff s disarmament proposals, lie replied. “According to- the strict rules of procedure Litvinoff was entirely out of order. Had this incident arisen at Westminster I should immediately have jumped on it. From that standpoint the whole of tlie Soviet proposals are quite irrelevant’ I quite agree they should he postponed until the whole matter of disarmament has progressed much further.” '

AMERICAN VIEW

NEW YORK, 30th Nov

The “New York Times’’ Washington correspondent states that to-day’s proposal by the Russian delegation at Geneva‘for the abolition of all land, naval, and air forces was not taken seriously by officials here. Tliere is a tendency to look upon it as a mere gesture. The question of disarmament is" regarded as far more complicated than the ideas advanced by the Soviet delegates, which were characterised as Utopian. •

LONDON PRESS COMMENT

LONDON, Ist Dec,

London morning papers refuse to take Litvinoff seriously. The ‘ Daily Telegraph’s’’ diplomatic correspondent describes the speech as a blatant form of platform propaganda. No one but a simpleton would treat the performance seriously. The “Morning Post” publishes the headline “Soviet Force—Fear in Sheep’s Clothing.” The “Daily Chronicle” says: “We may he sure the Russians feel no uneasiness at putting forward a programme which they knew they would not. be called upon to undertake themselves.” The “Daily News” thinks there cannot be many who will be deceived by this clumsy farce. Even the “Daily Herald” (Labour) seems to regard the scheme rather as a challenge than something practicable.