DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21668, 11 June 1932, Page 12

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

QUALITATIVE DISARMAMENT SIR JOHN SIMON’S RESOLUTION M. TARDIEU’S, INTERVENTION. (From Cue Own Correspondent.) LONDON, April 28. Sir Thomas Wilford, after a few days in London, is returning to Geneva 1 to-day. He had a few words to say regarding the Disarmament Conference. V . Sir John Simon’s resolution on qualitative disarmament, he said, y bad splendid support from every representative of the , Empire. The High Commissioner’s own speech w-as on the lines that if the resolution went through they would have passed ■ an important milestone towards the ultimate goal. M. Tardieu saw how things were going at Geneva, and he hurried to the conference. . _ The result, said Sir Thomas Wilford, is that the resolution is now watered down to such an extent to suit the French point of view'that it has lost much of its value. “Sir George Perley (Canada), Mr Lester (Irish Free State), Mr Te Water (South Africa)', the Aga Khan (India), and Mr Shedden (Australia) brought unreserved support to Sir John Simons proposal in a i series of brief and practical speeches,” writes The Times correspondent, “which, taken together with that of Sir Thomas Wilford the day previously, showed the united determination ot the British Commonwealth to press forward the most practical proposal that has-so far emanated from the’ deliberations of the conference.. Fnrther / support was forthcoming from M. Colban _(Norwav), Senhor Lima (Portugal). Mr Lo: (China), Baron Ramel (Sweden),. M. Motta (Switzerland), and M. Litvmoff • (U.5.5.R.).” . , ~ ... In presenting his resolution op qualitative disarmament on Wednesday (writes the correspondent of the Morning Post), Sir John Simon, made it perfectly clear that its acceptance by the General Commission did not "exclude the consideration, later on of schemes such as the French „ for the internationalism of certain categories of arms. The British Foreign Secretary’s motion sought to reduce to a common measure the various proposals for qualitative disarmament, the principle of which was defined by Sir John Simon as the selection of certain,classes or descriptions of weapons with a view to prohibiting . y international convention their possession or use by any State.’ - The general approval accorded to this y motion at Geneva caused considerat e perturbation in Pans, where, despite Sir John Simon’s assurance, it was regarded as an. attempt to set aside the French scheme for placing ‘ certam classes descriptions of weapons at the disposal , of the League, of Nations. ' A COMPROMISE. . As soon as he arrived at Geneva, M. Tardieu saw the British Foreign Secretary and the chiefs of several other important delegations, as /well as the Prime Minister, and conveyed to _ them ms strong disapproval of the resolution as it stood. It was obviously a moment to effect a compromise. Sir John Simon thereupon amended bis original resolution by the insertion of the proposal or internationalisation ” after the statement of,, the prohibition, . , •- A The amended text, which was adopted, runs as follows:—“ Without prejudice to other proposals which fall to be discussed under later head's of the agenda, the conference declares its approval of the principle of qualitative disarmament, that is the selection of certain classes or descriptions of weapons the possession or use of which should be absolutely prohibited to alh States or internationalised by means of a general convention. Sir John Simon explained that he had made these simple changes to dispel any doubt, but the addition of the reference to the internationalisation of weapons would not imply that the British delegation would subscribe to this alternative. FRENCH PREMIER’S GRATIFICATION. ' The French Premier thanked Sir John Simon for the conclusion which, thanks - to international understanding, the commission had now reached. There was now unanimous agreement to bring'the qualitative principle into the framework of tne convention, while the selection of the means of doing this was .still left to the conference. The goal would be reached either by the suppression of the weapons in question or by their internationalisation. There was now in his opinion no ground for pessimism. - , - The commission then set itself to determine what arms conferred superiority for, purposes of attack, and therefore were suitable to be brought under , the proposed prohibition. It was. decided that, the land,; sea, and air committees should determine what arms were the most specifically offensive, the most efficacious against national defence, and the _ most threatening to the civilian population.