WORLD DISARMAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20271, 2 December 1927, Page 9

WORLD DISARMAMENT

PREPARATORY COMMISSION. THE DELEGATES ASSEMBLED. (Free* Apjociatlon—Bj Telegraph—Copyright i GENEVA, November 30 Delegations from 26 countries have arrived for the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, opening to-day. Interest is naturally increased by the presence of the Soviet delegates, as well as a representative of the United States, though, as anticipated, the American Government flatly declines to appoint a delegate m the Security Commission in pursuance of her policy of refusal to enter European commitment or to guarantee the boun daries of any Europeon Power. M. Litvinoff is unlikely to dominate the proceed ings to the extent suggested by the preliminary publicity forecasts of his sp ech. which were so plentiful as to suggest the fear that it may not after all be delivered. There are more unlikely happenings than the restriction of the meeting to its proper agenda, which will be the constitution of a security commission.

BRITAIN’S SINCERE DESIRE. A GENERAL RESTRICTION. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, November 30. The Secretary for Air 'Sir Samuel Hoare) dealt with some aspects of the British contribution towards peach in Europe, in a ..peech at Cambridge University last n.ght. to the Treaty of Locarno, which he claimed was the result of British effort, he said that it represented for the first time since the war a mutual treaty that was willingly signed between the victors and the vanqinshed on the more general field of peaceful endeavour. There was no occasion ’on which the British Government had not thrown the whole weight of its influence into the scales of peace. Dealing with aerial disarmament, tnr Samuel Eoare recalled that Britain had scrapped her great Air Force of the war and decided to embark on. a programme that would give in the course of several years a modest force of defence. bo anxious, however, had the Government been to avoid any expansion, premature or unnecessary, that when the of Locarno was signed the programme that in any case was to be spread over a lengthy period, was deliberately retarded, ami the situation that found Britain even now with an Air Force about the size of the Air Force of her strongest neighbour, was accepted. It would not be remedied for several years to come. He claimed that there was no comparable nstance to be found ip Europe of such a ciincere desire to restrict armaments. Sir Philip Sasoon (Under-secretary for Air) stated in the House of Commons, in reply to a question, that of the 750 aeroplanes possessed by the Air Force, none was built before 1919. He declined, in the public interest, to state how many were built in each year from that date.

ARBITRATION AND SECURITY. THE NECESSARY GUARANTEES. RUGBY, November 30. Earlier in the year the Preparatory Disarmament Commission was engaged on a draft of a convention on technical questions that might serve as the basis for the main conference in the absence of an agreement. The work on the draft was delayed and' will not be resumed until the present meeting has reviewed the present position and has considered the appointment of a Security Committee as recommended by the eighth, meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations. The Assembly’s resolution ursed that such "a committee should be charged with -he study, under the direction of the commission, of the best means of giving all countries the guarantees o,f arbitration, and security necessary to enable them to fix the level of, their armaments at the lowest possible figure. English newspapers generally are devoting much attention to the proceedings at Geneva, and display a unanimous desire, both for economy materialistic reasons, that specific progress on an international basis shall be made towards limiting armaments. As for Britain’s share it is recognised that acting inde peudently of all international agreements, Britain has made sweeping reductions in her armed forces during recent years. On land she immediately cancelled conscription when the war ended, and has since reduced her army. On sea, despite Imperial commitments and duties in all parts of the world, her forces have been reduced to an unprecedented extent, while at the Naval Conference her proposals were for further limitation of size and gun-power of ships. “It-is not British armaments that keep anyone awake ai night,” stated one paper, and it is also pointed out that bv the Locarno treaties Britain displayed considerable altruism in taking on European commitments entirely to forward the cause of peace. Such a policy is approved, and although there is not the enthusiasm for further commit ments which might involve Britain in issues which are not her concern, there is the desire that the zeal for armament limiation shall not be abated and that it shall also be reflected in the policy of ether European nations.

SOVIET PROPOSALS EXPOUNDED discussion p6stponed:* GENEVA. November 30. “This is the millenium,” “The big menu for lunch,” “Quite Utopian,” “ So simple, it’s a wonder it was not proposed before.” These were a few of the lobby lunch-time comments after M. Litvinoff had expounded to the Preparatory Dis armament Commission the Soviet’s sweeping disarmament proposals. The closing of two streets flanking the Secretariat, and the presence of a police pilot car ahead of that containing M. Litvinoff, his English wife, and his two colleagues, were the only outward signs of the special measures to protect the Soviet trio, who have come virtually to tell the rest of the world to get on with the job, and to show it how it can be done. There was not the usual free-and-easy atmosphere in the Secretariat, from which the public were excluded, while the journalists were only admitted on the production of a special card with their photo graph. Dozens of gendarmes and detectives were mustered on the portico, where the Soviet delegates, heavily muffled in furs, were the last to arrive, 10 minutes after the appointed hour. There was no demonstration. Little time was wasted oh formalities Viscount Jonkeer Loudon devoted more words to regretting the absence of Lord Cecil and M. de Brouckere than to his welcome to the Russians, into whose hands M. Bernstorff instantly played by saying that he had been wronglv suspected of desiring to move the second reading of the Disarmament Convention. The more important thing was first to give the delegates an opportunity’ of explaining their Government’s viewpoints. This M. Litvinoff amply did in excellent English, winning his wife’s nods of approval. Beginning with the stereotyped formula “ militarism is the child of capitalism,” he went on to declare that the whole post-war history was a record of increased armaments. None of the League’s solrcen promises had been fulfilled. The imminence of war was making itself felt everywhere. If the discussions remained in the old channels they would inevitably lead to further increases within the legal ised limits The So-ict -enaine’v d sireri to contribute to the peace and disarmament of Europe, in which the people, en feebled bv the Great War, were struggling against the new Imperialist wars. There was no suggestion of security when Russia was the first invited, and its discussion would now embarrass her. It would be better to discuss disarmament first and security afterwards. The 'Soviet was ready with a scheme of general dunu-mjunent spread over four

years, plus intensive peace propaganda. All the commission’s work hitherto was decorative. The League had been fruitlessly wrestling seven years with the limitation of war midgets. JI. Litvinoff then read the Soviet s proposals. In view of the published statements that Russia in recent years has been specialising in chemical warfare, special notice was attracted by M. Litvinof’s declaration: “ \Ve fully endorse the prohibition of chemical warfare. The only secure means of ensuring its suppression is by placing the power in capitalist countries in the hands of the workers, who would sec that such preparations were not made.” He continued by stating that the money saved from war budgets could quickly be devoted to productive and cultural ends. M. Litvinoff thereafter submitted the Soviet motion. Resuming the discussion in the afternoon, M. Boncour emphasised that the Soviet meant to scrap old progress and begin new methods. If we sank every ship and sent home every soldier, the men would still remain sailors and soldiers.” He said that it meant leaving the small nations at the mercy of the big nations, unless an international force was created to resist attacks. The League had decided that security must precede disarmament. So it must continue on those lines. If the Soviet delegates were sincere they would follow the others to find the best way out of the entanglement. There was only one way out of the forest when lost, namely, always go on in one tionDr Benes trounced M. Litvinoff and showed that his proposals were not even new. He instanced the Norwegian pro' pcsal of 1922 for the abolition of Ml armaments. The subject had been examined to the very foundations. The commission would undoubtedly find it impossible to accept M. Litvinoff’s proposal, therefore it would be best to revert to the agenda and consider the appointment of a special commission on security and arbitration. He concluded by resenting Litvinoff’s criticisms of the work of the League. It was evident that this speech reflected the general opinion of the delegations as ether speakers expressed themselves similarly! The Russian, M. Dunacharsky, roa e in an endeavour to remove the impiession created by ,M. Litvinofl’s speech. He denied any attempt to frustrate the success of the Disarmament Commission. M. Politis declared that no civilised Slate could dispense with armed forces altogether. . . Jonkeer Loudon interposed to ask whether the conference wanted to continue or postpone the discussion as he understood the Soviet delegation was willing that the discussion should end if they could return to the subject on the second reading of the draft convention. Count Bernstorff, seeing, like eyerybody else, the way the wind was blowing, pro posed this, adding the opinion that- M Litvinoff’s criticisms had been too severe.

Eventually this was agreed to. Count Bernstorff’s motion providing for the second reading a month before the next meeting of the council. The question of the Security Commission was then raised. Mr Hugh Wilson, on behalf of the United States, making a statement regarding the decision not to participate. He declared that the United States Government was convinced that so far as its rights in the Pacific are concerned the four-Power pact concluded between Great Britain, United States, Japan, and France is adequate for security. M. Litvinoff also intimated that Russia did not desire to be represented, as she believed that such commission would diminish the importance of the Disarmament Conference, and no real results would be obtained.

The commission then, at the suggestion of Junkeer Loudon, assented to Russia being represented at the security discussion by an observer. While the commission was sitting M. Briand was already answering M. jitvinoff in the Chamber of Deputies, Paris. He asked: ‘‘ If we fling away our arms, how are we to be sure that others will do the same thing?” At the same time ne mentioned that in Russia recently 700,000 men carried out manoeuvres, whereas France, when the new army reorganisation was carried out, would have a standing force of only 450,000, compared with 990,000 in 1914.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

THE ONLY REAL MEANS. COMPLETE ABOLITION. ' GENEVA, November 30. M. Litvinoff moved—“ That jvhereas the existence of armaments and the tendency to growth inevitably lead to armed conflicts, diverting the workers and the peasants from peaceful productive labour, bringing in their train countless disaster; whereas armed force is a weapon in the hands of the great Powers for the oppression of small and colonial countries; and whereas 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 for complete general disarmament, and convenes, not later than March, 1928, a disarmament conference to discuss and confirm the proposals.” M. Litvinoff, after moving the resolution, presented the details of the proposals. They included the dissolution of the personnel of armies, navies, and airforces;' the destruction of all naterial; the cessation of training; the. abolition of service, whether voluntary or conscripted, also the release of reservists from obligations ; the destruction of fortresses, naval air bases, factories, and arsenals; the prohibition of warlike allocations in _ ational budgets; the abolition of ministries, de partments, and staffs; the prohibition of training education,. both national, and local; the prohibition of warlike ijatir.ts. with a view to removing the .rcuitive thereto; and, finally, national legislation making infringements of the foregoing a grave crime. A year is to be alio ved for the destruction of material, to commence without delay, and four years are allowed for general disarmament to enable capi talist States to disband their standing armies.—A. and N.Z. Cable.

BRITISH DELEGATE’S SILENCE

A SUFFICIENT REASON,

LONDON, Decmber 1 (Received Dec. 1, at 7 p.m ) There was considerable comment at Geneva on the silence of the British delegation throughout the proceedings Lord Cushendun, in an interview, when asked why he had not participated, said; “T do not believe in talking when there is nothing to say. The business was supposed to” have been entirely connected with procedure, and I have no exception to take to that.” Asked his opinion regarding M. Litvinoff’s disarmament proposals, he replied: “.According to the strict rules of procedure. M. 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 tl» Soviet proposals are nuite irrelevant. I quite agreed that they should be postponed until the whole matter of disarmament has progressed much further.”—A. and N.Z. Cable.

XOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY

REGARDED AS MERE GESTURE.

NEW YORK. November 30(Received Dec. 1. at 5.5 p.m.)

The Washington correspondent of The Times st-’ics that to-day’s nropnsal by th" Russian delegation at Geneva for the i hoi if ion of all land, naval, and air forcewas n r -t taken seriously bv off-cials Them is a tend-mov to look unon it as a mere cestu’-e The question of d's-'emament ri regarded as far more complicated than the ideas advanced by the Soviet dele gates, which were characterised as - Utopian.—V and N Z Cable.

Such of the cable news in this Issue as i attributed to The Times has appeared in that paper, and 's cabled to New Zealand m snecial permission. It should be undeistoo-t that the opinions are not those of The Time? unless they are expressly stated to be so.