ARMAMENTS LIMITATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20709, 6 May 1929, Page 7

ARMAMENTS LIMITATION

THE BRITISH VIEW. direct method favoured. * (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, May 3. At the Preparatory Disarmament Conference at Geneva to-day Lord Cusheudun (chief British delegate) gave his opinion regarding the two methods of the limitation of war material which had-been put forward—namely, direct limitation, and Budgetary limitation. He considered that direct limitation was the obvious and ideal method, except that it could not be applied without some form of international control. Mr Gibson (United States delegate) had urged this system, but he did not think the United States would permit an international Commission to investigate its armaments, and he could say the same for England. With these two countries refusing international control the direct system of limiting war material became impossible. Another proposal was that disarmament should be left to the good faith of those concerned. Without something more complete than good faith, however, he feared that international suspicion would only be increased. He preferred the French proposal for Budgetary limitation, which, while it was not ideal, was a step in the right direction. The debate was adjourned until tomorrow. AMERICA’S ATTITUDE. MISCHIEVOUS REPORTS. WASHINGTON, May 3. (Received May 5, at 7 p.m.) It is stated that President Hoover Is displeased with the reports that the United States has changed her position on reduction of armaments, based on recent developments at Geneva, and he is understood to regard such reports as circulated for mischievous purposes. Officials state that no instructions or implications, direct or indirect, for such a change have gone to Mr Gibson. —Australian Press Association. * DIRECT LIMITATION REJECTED. GENEVA, May 4. (Received May 5, at 7 p.m.) The Disarmament Committee, by 22 votes to 2, resolved that, “having rejected the system of direct limitation of war material, the committee decides that limitation by reduction must be sought by means of publicity of expenditure, which will be dealt with in examining the articles in the draft convention already adopted.” The Chinese and Soviet delegations voted against the motion, Germany abstaining from voting.—Australian Press Association— United Service.