PROBLEM OF DISARMAMENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19809, 2 December 1927, Page 11

PROBLEM OF DISARMAMENT

COMMISSION AT GENEVA. PROPOSALS OF SOVIET. ABOLITION OF WAIt SOUGHT CRITICISM BY DELEGATES. AMERICA r AND PACIFIC. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright(Received December 1. 5.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. GENEVA, Nov. 30. Tho Preparatory Commission on Disarmament began its sitting to-day. There were no demonstrations in the streets, and little time was wasted in formalities. The President, Jonkheer Loudon, Holland, devoted more words to regretting the absence of Viscount Cecil and of Professor de Brouckere, of Belgium, than to welcoming the Russian delegates, into whose hands Count Bernstorff, Germany, instantly played by saying he had been wrongly suspected of desiring to move the second reading of the Disarmament Convention. A more important thing was first to give the delegates an opportunity of explaining the points of view of their Governments. This Litvinoff amply did, in excellent English that won his wife's nods of approval. He began with the stereotyped formula that militarism is the child of capitalism, and went on to declare that the whole history since the war was a record of increased armaments. None of the solemn promises of the League had had been fulfilled and the imminence of war was making itself felt everywhere. If the discussions remained in the old it would inevitably lead to further increases of armaments within the legalised limits. The Soviet genuinely desired to contribute to peace and the disarmament of Europe, where the people, enfeebled by the Great War, wore struggling against new imperialistic wars. There was no suggestion of security when Russia was first invited to the conference. To discuss security now would embarrass her. It would be better to discuss disarmament first and security afterwards. Litvinoff Moves Motion. Tho Soviet was ready with a scheme for general disarmament, to be spread over four years, together with intensive pease propaganda. All the work of the commissions had hitherto been merely decorative, and the League had fruitlessly wrestled for seven years with the problem of the limitation of war budgets. Litvinoff then moved the following resolution : That whereas tho existence of armaments and their tendency to grow larger inevitably lead to armed conflicts, which divert the workers and peasants from peaceful and productive labour, and bring in their train countless disaster; whereas armed force is a weapon in the hands of the great Powers for the oppression of the small countries and colonies- whereas its complete abolition is the only real means of guaranteeing against the outbreak of war: this Commission resolves to proceed immediately with the working out of the details of a draft convention on complete general disarmament, and will convene, at a date not later than March, 1923, a Disarmament Conference to discuss and confirm its proposals. After moving his resolution Litvinoff presented the details of his proposals. They included the dissolution of the personnel of armies, navies and air forces; the destruction of all war material, tho cessation of training, and the abolition of service, whether voluntary or conscripted. They further included the release of reservists from their obligations, tho destruction of fortresses and naval and air bases,, factories and arsenals; the prohibition of warlike allocations in national budgets, and the abolition of War Ministries and Departments and their staffs; the prohibition of military training and education, both national and local; the prohibition of warlike patents, with a view to removing the incentive to such invention. Finally ho included national legislation to make infringements of the foregoing proposals a grave crime. A year would be allowed for the destruction of material, to commence without delay. I* our yeais would be allowed for general disarmament, to enable the capitalist States to disband their standing armies. - Chemical Warfare Banned. In view of the oft-published statements that Russia of recent years has been specialising in chemical.-warfare special notice was attracted by Litvinoff's declaration, that "wo fully endorse the prohibition of chemical warfare. The only secure means for its suppression is to place power in capitalist countries in the hands of the workers, who would see that such preparations wero not made. Ihe money saved from war budgets could be quickly devoted to productive and cultural ends. Tho Conference adjourned when Litvinoff had proposed his motion. M. Bon cour, France, resumed the discussion in the afternoon. He said the Soviet meant to scrap the old progress and to begin new methods. It they were to sink every ship ana send home every soldier, men would still remain sailors and soldiers It meant leaving the small nations at the mercy of the big ones unless an .international force were created to resist attacks. The League had decided that security must pro-'iedo disarmament, so they must continue on those lines. If tho Soviet delegates wero sincere, they would follow tho others m an endeavour to find the best way out of tho entanglement. There was only oue way out of a forest when ono was lost, namely always to go in one direction. , * ' , * Resentment of Criticism. M. Bones, tho Czecho-Slovakian Minister for Foreign Affairs, then trounced Litvinoff. Ho showed that his proposals wero not even now. He instanced the Norwegian proposal in 1922 for the abolition of all armaments. The subject had been examined to its very foundations, he said. The commission would undoubtedly find it impossible to accept Litvsnoff's proposals, and, therefore, it would bo best to revert to the agenda, and con sider the appointment of the Special Commission on Security and Arbitration. M. Betios said he .resented Litvmoff's criticisms of tho work of the League. It was evident that M. Benes had reflected the general opinion of the delegates. Other speakers expressed themselves similarly.

The Russian delegate, Lunacharsky, then rose in an endeavour to remove the impression created ; by Litvinoff s speech. He denied that there was any attempt to frustrate the success of the "Disarmament Commission. M. Politis, Greece, declared that no civilised State could dispgrpse with its armed forces altogether. Tho President here interposed to ask whether the conference wanted to continue, or to postpone the discussion, as it was understood that the Soviet delegation was willing for the" discussion to end, if it could return to the subject on the second reading of .'tho draft convention. . i Count Bernstorff, seeing, -as did everybody else, the way the wind was blowing, proposed the adjournment. He said that in his opinion Litvinqff's criticisms had been too severe. Eventually this was agreed to. The motion provided for the second reading a month before the next meeting of the Council of the League. Therefore, in February the question of the Security Commission will bo raised. America and the Pacific. Mr. Hugh Wilson, on Behalf of tha United States, made a statement as to its decision not to participate in the Commission. Ho said the United States Government was convinced, as far a& its rights in the Pacific were concerned, that the four Power pact between Britain, the United States, Japan and France was adequate for its security. Litvinoff also intimated that Russia did not desire to be represented. He said he believed such a commission would diminish tho importance of the Disarmament Conference, and no real results would bo obtained. The conference then, at thet suggestion of . Jonkheer Loudon, assented to Russia's being represented at the Security Commission by an observer while the commision was sitting. M. Briand, France, said he had answered already Litvinoff in Paris in the Chamber of Deputies. He asked how, if they were to fling away tjieir arms, they could be sure that others would do the same thing at the same time. He said in Russia repently 700,000 men had carried out manoeuvres, whereas France, when her new army reorganisation was carried out, would have a standing force of only 450,000 men, compared with 990,000 in 1914. Arrival of Russians. The fact that two streets were closed which flan'r the Secretariat of the League, and ths presence of a police .pilot car ahead of the ono containing Litvinoff and his English wife and his two colleagues, ware thb only outward signs of any special measures taken to protect the three Soviet delegates, who have come virtually to tell the rest of the world to get on with the job, and to show it howit can be done.

There was not tho usual free and easy atmosphere at the Secretariat, from which the public was excluded, while journalists wero admitted only on production of a special card' with the holder's photograph. Dozens of gendarmes and detectives were mustered in the portico, where tho Soviet delegates, heavily muffled in Furs, were the last to arrive, 10 minutes after the appointed time. ■ "This is the millennium. It is too big a menu for lunch. Quite Utopian. The scheme is so simple I wonder it was not proposed before," These are a few of tho comments made in the lobby at lunchtime after Litvinoff had expounded the Soviet's disarmament proposals. SILENCE OF BRITISH. IRRELEVANCE OF LITVINOFF. LORD CUSHENDUN'S COMMENTS. (Received December 1, 5.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. GENEVA, Dec. 1. There is considerable comment in Geneva on the silence of the British delegates throughout the proceedings. Lord Cushendun was asked why they had not taken part in the discussion. He said: I do not believe in talking when there is nothing to say. The business was supposed to. be entirely connected with procedure, and I had no exception to take to it. When asked his opinion regarding Litvinoff's disarmament proposals, Lord Cushendun replied: " According to the strict rulos of procedure Litvinoff was entirely out of order. Had this incident arisen at Westminster I should have immediately jumped on it. From that standpoint the whole of the Soviet proposals aro quite irrelevant. I quite agree that they should be postponed until the whole matter of disarmament has progressed much further." LONDON PRESS VIEWS. "BEAR IN SHEEP'S CLOTHES." RUSSIA NOT DEEMED SERIOUS. (Received December 2, 12.35 a.m.) A. and N.Z. LONDON, Dee I Tho London morning papers refuse to take Litvinoff seriously. The diplomatic corespondent of the Daily Telegraph de scribes his speech as a blatant form of platform propaganda. None but a simpleton would treat the performance seriously. The Morning Post publishes a headtine, " Soviet. Farce: Bear in Sheep's Clothing.' The Daily Chronicle says: Wo may be sure the Russians felt no uneasiness in putting forward a programme which they knew they would not be called upon to undertake themselves. *1 no Daily News thinks there cannot bo many who are deceivod by this clumsy farce Even the Daily Herald, the La bom paper, seems to regard the scheme rather as a challenge than as something practicable. PROPOSALS UTOPIAN. OPINION IN AMERICA. QUESTION TOO COMPLICATED. (Received December 1, 6.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. NEW YORK, Nov 30. The Washington correspondent of the New York Times says 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 the officials in Washington. There is a tendency to look upon it as a mere gesture. The question of disarmament is regarded as being tar muri com plicated than the ideas advanced by the Soviet suggest. They were characterised as being Utopian,