PEACE BY ARBITRATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19270, 6 September 1924, Page 9

PEACE BY ARBITRATION

MR MACDONALD’S PLAN. DETAILS ELABORATED. WAY MUST FIRST BE PAYED Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright. GENEVA, September 4. Mr Ramsay MacDonald opened the debate on the question of a reduction oi armaments with a speech of one hour s duration. He said that he would do ins utmost to lay the foundations of peaceHe emphasised that all the members of the delegation of which he was chief, had determined to put all their ideas in a common pool. He said that Britain did not subscribe to the Pact of Mutual Assistance, not because she was indifferent to public security, but because she felt that they had not yet properly prepared the soil. Britain wished to carry out to- tee very letter her obligations, but she would not sign an indefinite proposal which, it she tried to carry it out, would probably be frustrated by public opinion. The last word, however, had not been said in regard:. to the Pact. ‘‘We must have the whole world with us,’’ he added. -Be declared that they could not afford to let Germany remain outside the League. The London Conference had created a new relation, and it should bring Germany into the Assembly. The matter should oe, taken up by the present Assembly. Russia had changed, and the Anglo-Russian Agreement was paving the way for Russia to enter the League. Dealing with the question of security, Mr MacDonald pointed out that the difficuly was in establishing who was tee aggressor. He dwelt on his system ot arbitration, and said: “If we are unabie to elaborate a proper system of arbitration, then we should return to military pacts; but these pacts should clearly define Ihe nature of the obligation imposed by them.” Mr MacDonald emphasised that an optional arbitration clause would have to he thoroughly examined before Britain and the dominions could give adherence to it. Tho arbitration proposal was directed :at the problem of armaments. He pointed out as regards naval armaments, that Britain had fulfilled the terms of the Washington Agreement, as she had-, fulfilled all her agreements. The way would have to be prepared for a conference on armaments, as without preparation, the conference would be a failure. All the nations would have to participate In that conference. The London Agreement had helped to prepare the way. Britain adhered to the Covenant of the League, and she did not desire to weaken it. Certain articles in tho Covenant could be embodied in a charter of peace. , The matter should be referred to a committee before • tee Assembly separated, while the membeis worked to enlighten public opinion m their own countries. The whole speech was translated into French. Mr MacDonald and M. Herriot warmly shook hands before leaving the Assembly, which adjourned till the afternoon.— Reuter. A MIXED RECEPTION* SEVERAL POINTS OBSCURE. ... LONDON, September 5. (Received Sept. 5, at 7.15 p.m,) The Daily Telegraph’s Geneva correspondent says: “Mr MacDonald’s speech met with a mixed reception owing to its somewhat negative conclusion. It is understood that M. Herriot is urging .Mb’ MacDonald to make a second speech be-, fore returning to London clearing; up several points, notably His allusihn' to'tiliey impossibility of designating the .aggresspr' in a great war until after- 5(3 years. Mr, MacDonald, after his speech, assured M, Herriot that he did not intend the iidhn sion to cover Germany’s responsibility.” “M. Herriot’s speech to-day will' deal with Germany’s admission to the League, which M. Herriot contend? must rtot occasion exceptional procedure, but be strictly in' 1 accordance with - the Covenant. He will argue that the questions of disarma-, raent, the Pact of Mutual Assistance, and Arbitration cannot be dissociated and that France’s treaties witbi : CzeclioSlovakia and other,’States are to be regarded as the strongest defence of European peace.” —A. and N.Z. Cable. CRITICISM IN PARIS. AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO GEIL MANY. PARIS, September 6. (Received Sept. 5 at 9 p.m.) Mr MacDonald’s speech at Geneva is severely criticised in, influential ' circles in France, especially his .references to' the difficulty of apportioning the. blame in cases of aggression, which, is interpreted as a reference to the origin of the war. It is feared that the references will encourage Germany in her effort to secure a revision of the clause in the Versailles Treaty blaming her as the cause of the, war. ~, The Temps sunns up Mr MacDonald s speech as “disarmament without guarantees. and arbitration without military sanctions.” —A. and N.Z. Cable. AN EARLY CONFERENCE. AUSTRALIAN LABOUR VIEW. PUBLIC OPINION READY. GENEVA, September 4. (Received Sept. 5, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr M. Charlton (Leader of the Labour Party in tho Commonwealth Parliament), was the third speaker in the disarmament debate, following the Polish Foreign Minister. His speech, was almost wholly devoted to pressing the claim for an early disarmament conference, as he considered, unlike Mr MacDonald, that tho physcological moment had arrived, and that’ suerr a conference would tend to establish more cordial relations between tho nations, and that it would also bring about a spirit of sweet reasonableness. The prospect- of relief from the heavy burden of armaments would induce all to come within the jurisdiction of the League. Mr Charlton disagreed with Mr MacDonald s method of convoking the conference. He proposed that the League should invite all the nations, including Germany, Turkey and Russia without delay. They should not procrastinate, otherwise it would be the beginning of the end. If something were not done now tho public which wanted disarmament would lose confidence in the League and the world would slip back into war in a few years. The London Pact had relieved the position considerably so far as France and other nations were concerned, and France s anxiety regarding security would be removed if a general reduction of armaments were agreed upon, leaving individual disputes to be settled by arbitration, “or by any other method that may be devised.”—A. and N.Z. Cable.

AMERICA’S ATTITUDE. PRIMARILY A EUROPEAN PROBLEM. SYMPATHETIC TO PROPOSAL. WASHINGTON, September 4. (Received Sept. 5, at 10.5 p.m.) An Administration spokesman authoritatively outlining the attitude regarding Mr MacDonald’s land disarmament proposal at Genova declared that the United States Government considers the question as primarily a European one, adding that if the European nations could preliminarily reach an agreeable basis the conference would have a definite promise of success. The United States would then willingly assist by participating in a similar conference in London. The spokesman pointed out that the

Western nations consider naval disarmament paramount -and land disarmament secondary, because pone maintain a large standing army. He hinted that Mr Hughes, during his recent European visit, informally discussed the; problem with M. Herriot and Mr MacDonald, all agreeing that an ultimate settlement revolves round the ability of the, British and French to effect such limitations as will yet retain adequate security for France. —A. and N.Z. Cable.