TO AVOID WAR

Southland Times, Issue 20447, 27 March 1928, Page 5

TO AVOID WAR

BRITAIN’S MISSION REDUCTION IN AIR AND SEA FORCES STATEMENT BY LORD CUSHENDEN (By Telegraph-Press Assn—Copyright.) Rugby, March 24. The statement made by Count Clauzel (France) at the Geneva Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference on Thursday that important conversations were proceeding which would make a smoother path to disarmament, was corroborated at yesterday’s session by the British delegate, Lord Cushenden. He said that although any conversations that might be proceeding so far as Britain was concerned were not in his hands, and, therefore, he was not in a position to give definite information as to the precise stage reached, he knew enough to say that M. Clauzel had every justification for the in formation he had given at the close of the session. Lord Cushenden made a statement to the Press in which, referring to M. Litvinoff’s reply to his criticism, he said it amounted to an admission that the Soviet did not regard civil war as war. The main case against the Soviet Republic was not that they fought their own subjects, but that their whole world policy was to create civil war. He was in possession of authentic figures showing that enormous sums had been spent in the Soviet in supplying arms to Chinese Nationalists. Britain’s part at Shanghai had been taken purely for the protection of the lives of the British subjects and their property, and incidentally those of other Europeans. It also revealed Britain’s chief difficulty in the matter of disarmament. Although it would be relatively easy for some countries to indicate the essential needs for their internal security, Great Britain had always to keep before her eyes the possibilities like that of Shanghai. Foreign nations always expected Britain to lead, and there was considerable feeling in England itself that we ought

to disarm more now because no war was imminent. Wftat a sensation could have been made if the British delegate at the Washington Conference had been able to state that Britain was prepared to scrap, say, 1000 fighting ships, of a total tonnage of 8,000,000? Yet as a matter of fact Britain had done this largely from the point of view of economy. Again, despite France’s overwhelming superiority in the air, Great Britain had had no hesitation in reducing her great war strength of air squadrons. It was also Great Britain which had prepared the first draft convention for a reduction of armaments. Finally, Lord Cushenden expressed his desire for a greater admixture at Geneva of realism with idealism and more patience by all those who were seeking disarmament.—British Official Wireless. A DRAMATIC EVENT. London, March 25. In view of Admiral Gibson’s presence at Geneva, Lord Cushenden’s offer of naval reduction is a dramatic’ event, and if an agreement is reached on capital ships it is reasonable to expect that the cruiser discussion will be resumed.—A. and N.Z. OPINION IN GERMANY. GENERAL DISARMAMENT URGED. Berlin, March 25. “General disarmament is an obligation towards the German people and cannot be postponed without impossibly straining Germany’s patience,” says a semi-official newspaper when reflecting on the official attitude at the recent session at Geneva. It adds:—“Germany fails to understand why the other side is avoiding its obligations.” The newspapers generally support Count Bernstorff’s outburst at Friday’s meeting. The Tagliche says:—“lf the League is incapable of carrying out disarmament it is no use to anybody and if the other Powers do not discharge their obligations Germany will be released of hers.” The Nationalist newspapers freely use the word sabotage, saying that apparently the Disarmament Committee’s main object was to postpone disarmament. —A. and N.Z. A COLD RECEPTION. VIEWS OF OTHER POWERS. (Rec. 9.4 p.m.) London, March 26. The Daily Chronicle’s special Geneva correspondent says that Lord Cushenden’s naval disarmament proposals have been coldly received by the representatives of other Powers. The Italian delegation when questioned merely shrugged their shoulders. Sato said that in regard to capital ships his Government had not made up their minds, but he doubted if Japan’s views on the difficult question had changed. Count Clauzel said that such proposals were interesting as there was always a chance that negotiations might lead to some important, result. American circles received the proposals frigidly, stating that Britain has new ships such as the Rodney and Nelson which is the largest yet launched. 1 America would be privileged to build such ships in 1929, but Lord Cushenden’s proposal would prevent this and thus destroy the equality of the basis of the Washington agreement.—A. and N.Z.

AMERICA WITHHOLDS COMMENT. (Rec. 11.20 p.m.) Washington, March 26. There will be no official comment on the British proposal for a reduction of battleships until Mr Gibson, the United States representative at Geneva, furnishes his report. It is stated that the proposal is not new and was made at the Naval Conference at Geneva in June. Then Americans felt that a reduction would weaken the strategic value of the fleet, which was handicapped by the absence of bases in a manner not felt by the British.—A. and N.Z.