LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Southland Times, Issue 21836, 13 October 1932, Page 7

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

DISARMAMENT.

“Geneva.”)

(By ‘

Although it is clearly enough understood that the Disarmament Conference adjourned on July 23 with a resolution pledging the conference to the principle of substantial reduction, as distinct from mere limitation, it does not seem to be realized clearly what the “Bureau” of the conference is, and what its powers. The Bureau is the officers of the conference, namely, the president (Mr Henderson), the honorary president (M. Motta, Switzerland), and representatives of the Governments of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, U.S.A, and Russia The Bureau is empowered to meet during the interim and consider various points in the final resolution—principally the important proposals emanating from Mr Hoover

As regards naval disarmament, the final resolution invites the Powers who were parties to the Washington and London treaties to confer and report later to the new general session next January. This is shortly to be done.

The final resolution already referred to was accepted by the American, British, French, Japanese and a number of smaller Powers, as accurately reflecting the measure of agreement reached, admitting, however, that it fell far short of what they hoped to accomplish and did not by a long way represent the most advanced opinions. The resolution was rejected by the German, Italian and Russian delegations as not being even an effective first step, while the Chinese delegate, maintaining that the Eastern dispute left China high in the air, refused to pledge China to any form of disarmament.

Plenty of offers were made at the conference. If compromises can be arranged substantial reductions should be achieved. America is definitely willing to abolish all large guns, tanks, bombing planes, one-third of capital ships. Britain’s whole policy is limitation and restriction, Italy will go any distance, according to Grandi’s statements, Germany wants others to come into line with herself and is willing to abolish her 10,000-ton “pocket battleship” if other Powers abolish battleships. Out of this welter of proposals, it ought to be possible to mould something substantial. , * World Economic Conference.

As Mr Ramsay MacDonald put it in the House of Commons on July 12: “It is practically impossible for any Government in Europe, with the tremendous amount of work which Ministers have on their shoulders, to add to that work the calling of a further conference like this. We pay money, to the League of Nations, we pay our subscriptions to help keep the staff, and this is precisely the sort of thing that they can prepare for us.” The preparations for the conference have been entrusted to a committee of the council composed of representatives of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Japan, to which Belgium and the United States of America were afterwards added. This committee is to be responsible for the general organization of the conference and the preparation of its political background. The fixing of the exact agenda will be part of the preparatory work, but the following main questions were indicated at Lausanne and Geneva as requiring examination by the Economic Conference: (a) Financial Questions: Monetary and credit policy; exchange difficulties; the level of prices; the movement of capital. (b) Economic Questions: Improved conditions of production and trade interchanges, with particular attention to: tariff policy; prohibitions and restrictions of importation and exportation. Quota and other barriers to trade; producers’ agreements. Lausanne Conference. Although German reparations were capitalized to a sum of <S 150,000,000 at par, this to represent a complete and final payment, Lausanne was not conclusive. France and Italy were only willing to forgive Germany her payments in reparations if they were sure that America and Britain would forgive them their debt payments, and they could not be sure, because America was not there to express her views. Consequently the whole Lausanne agreement is made dependent upon on some satisfactory settlement being reached with America and one of the great tasks of the next few months will be to get some agreement with America carried through. Till then,, the less said about it, the better. • * * * Lord Cecil and Disarmament Lord Cecil says:— And what were we asked to sacrifice? Little or nothing of any real value to our security. Abolish all warships over 10,000 tons! Who is the worse for it? We are merely going back to a position which was universal not many years since. Abolish submarines! A clear and admitted increase of our national security. Abolish tanks and mobile land guns over 4 inches in calibre—that is, return to the pre-war days when field-guns were the only field artillery, and tanks had not been invented. The effect would be to make ordinary field entrenchments an effective protection against hostile attack—a clear advantage to all except aggressors. Finally, abolish bombing aircraft! What reform can be imagined more obviously of advantage to our safety? Once again we should be an island! Surely, if these simple truths can be made to resound throughout the land, our Government will pluck up courage to resist their experts and put themselves at the head of the forces of peace. In any case, do not let it be said that we have failed in our duty. The time is short, the opportunity immense. In Heaven’s name, let us make the most of it.