ARMAMENTS CONTROL

Taranaki Daily News, 24 November 1934, Page 7

ARMAMENTS CONTROL

AN UNFORTUNATE SPEECH SIR JOHN SIMON’S VIEWS REMARK MISUNDERSTOOD RESTRICTION FAVOURED By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. Rec. 5.5 p.m. London, Nov. 22. Speaking in the House of Commons the Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, referring to his own speech on the arms traffic, said he desired in all sincerity to express his consciousness that the speech had not conveyed the impression he had wished. Judging it not by tiie exact words but by the impression created about it outside, he admitted it must be described as an unfortunate speech. Sir John went on to point out that it was at his suggestion that the subject of the control of the arms traffic was. again raised at Geneva a few months ago. He was now glad to say there was to be an opportunity of co-operating with the United States on the question. It was only fair to say that the Government had persistently worked for an arms convention. There now seemed to be a much better prospect of obtaining one than ever before. The Government was quite willing to hold an inquiry into the questions whether a state monopoly would be preferable to private manufacture and ths means which ought to be adopted to prevent abuses in the sale •of arms abroad. In the speech on November 8, to which he referred to-day, Sir John said this important subject outside the House had often been treated as though it was a simple issue on which a conclusion could be reached almost automatically by anyone who was not either a fool or a knave. A private armaments firm had its skilled staff, its organisations and its machinery, which were producing a certain quantity of armaments, and that side of its business could not, in fact, be maintained without foreign orders. If the country was to be plunged into the calamity of war. then these armament firms and private shipyards owing to their previous organisation and their acquired aptitude were able to switch over very rapidly from their level of peace production to their maximum war production. That was the essence of this arrangement, and only by that means was it possible to bridge the gap, which widened at a terrific rate once war again visited the world, between peace production and war demand Jt was the need for a sudden and almost an unlimited expansion in time of war which made the conception of Government monopoly so difficult to applyThey were asked to set an example for oilier people to follow. But if that were done not only would there be no supplies by British armaments firms but Britain would be unable to make any purchases from foreign sources, because one State which was at peace could not provide arms from its own arsenals to a State at war without involving itself in that war.

States which had no internal production of arms would not only be obliged tz set up their own factories but would have to accumulate great stock, so that they might feel more secure.