SOVIET PROPOSALS PRESENTED AT GENEVA

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20013, 2 December 1927, Page 7

SOVIET PROPOSALS PRESENTED AT GENEVA

M. LITVINOFF OUTLINES PLAN TO ABOLISH WAR FOR ALL TIME SEEKS IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION 6f MATERIAL AND DISBANDMENT OF FORCES M. Litvinoff, head of the Russian delegation to the Preliminary Commission on Disarmament, presented sweeping proposals on ' behalf of the Soviet when the Commission met at Geneva. His plan provides for the immediate destruction of war material and the disbandment of all armed forces. M. Paul Boncour (France) pointed out that it was the League’s policy that security should precede disarmament, and the Russian proposals, with M. Litvinoff’s concurrence, were postponed for consideration at the autumn session in March. (By Telegraph—Per Press Assn.—Copyright.)

M. LITVINOFFS SPEECH * ‘ CAPITALISTIC STATES. ’ ’ CRITICISM OF THE LEAGUE’S WORK. (A & N.Z.) GENEVA, Nov. 30. At the Preparatory Conference on Disarmament, M. Litvinoff moved: — That whereas the existence of armaments and the tendency of their growth inevitably led to armed conflicts, diverting the workers and peasants from their peaceful, productive labour, and bringing in their train countless disaster; whereas armed force is the weapon in the hands of the Great Powers for oppression of small and colonial countries; whereas complete abolition is the only real means of guaranteeing against an outbreak of war, this Commission is resolved to proceed immediately with the working out of details of a draft convention for complete general disarmament, and convenes not later than March, 1928, a Disarmament Conference to discuss and confirm the proposals. M. Litvinoff, after moving his resolution, presented details of the proposals. Swooping Proposals. They included the dissolution of tho personnel of armies, navies and air forces, the destruction of all material, the cessation of training, and the abolition of service, whether voluntary or conscripted, also the release of reservists from obligations, the destruction of fortresses, naval and air bases, factories and arsenals, the prohibition of warlike allocations in the national budgets, the abolition of ministries, departments and staffs, the prohibition of training in education, both national and local, and the prohibition of warlike patents with a view to removing the incentive thereto, and finally national legislation making infringements of the foregoing a grave crime. A year is allowed for the destruction of material, to commence without delay, and four years are allowed for general disarmament, to enable the capitalistic States to disband their standing armies. No Warm Welcome. There was not the usual free and easy atmosphere in the Secretariat, from which the public were excluded, while journalists were only admitted on the production of a special card with their photograph. Dozens of gendarmes and detectives were mustered on the portico where the Soviet delegates, heavily muffled in furs, were the last- to arrive, ten minutes after the appointed hour. There was no demonstration, and little time was wasted on formalities. M. Jonkers devoted more words to regretting the absence of Viscount Cecil and M. De Brouckere than to the welcome to the Russians, into whose hands Count Bernstorff instantly played by saying that he had been wrongly suspected of desring to move the second reading of the Disarmament .Convention. The more important thing was first to give the delegates an opportunity of explaining their Government’s viewpoints. This M. Litvinoff amply did in excellent English, winning ,Ins English wife’s nods of approval. Post-War History, Beginning with the streotyped forImula: “Militarism is the child of capitalism,” he went on to declare that 'the whole of the post-war history was a record of increased armaments. None of the League’s solemn promises had (been, fulfilled and the imminence of ;war was making itself felt everyjwhere. If the discussions remained in ’the old channels they would inevitably (lead to further increases within the legalised limits. The Soviet genuinely I desired to contribute to the peace and j disarmament of Europe, in which the Ipcople, enfeebled by the Great War, (were struggling against new imperialist jwars. There was no suggestion of security when Russia was first invited, land its discussion would now embarrass her. It would be better to discuss disarmament first and security (afterwards. ‘ The Soviet was ready with a scheme lof general disarmament spread over |four years, and with intensive peafic j propaganda. All the Commission’s (work up to now had been decorative. The League had been fruitlessly wrestling for seven years with the HmitaItion of war budgets. Chemical Warfare. I In view of the oft-published state*ments that Russia in recent years has ibeen specialising in chemical warfare, ’special notice was attracted by M. Litjvinoff’s declaration: “We fully endorse the prohibition of chemical warfare. The only secure means of ensuring suppression is by placing the power iin capitalist countries in the hands of ithe workers, who would see that such I preparations were not made.’’ He

l continued that money saved from the war budgets could quickly be devoted to productive and cultural ends. M. Boncour emphasised that the Soviet meant to scrap the old progress and begin new methods. “If we sank every ship and sent home every soldier, the men would still remain sailors and soldiers,” he said. It meant leaving the small nations at the mercy of the big nations, unless an international force was created to resist attacks. The League had decided that security must precede disarmament, so it must continue on those lines. If the Soviet delegates were sincere they would follow the others to find the best way out of the entanglement. There was only one way out of a forest when lost, namely, always to go in one direction. Plain Speaking. Dr. Benes (Czccho-Slovakia) trounced M. Litvinoff and showed tnat his proposals were not even new. He instanced the Norwegian proposal of. 1922 for the abolition of all armaments, and said the subject had been examined to its very foundations. The Commission would undoubtedly find it impossible to accept M. L/.tvinoff’s proposal, and i thereiore it would be best to revert to the agenda and consider the appointment of a special commission on security and arbitration. Dr. Benes concluded by resenting M. Litvinoff’s criticisms of the work ol ihu League. It was evident that Dr. Bernis’ speech reflected the general opinion of the delegations, as other speakers expressed themselves similarly. Tho Russian, M. Dunaeharsky, rose in an endeavour to remove the impression created by M. Litvinoff in his speech. He denied any attempt to frustrate the success of the Disarmament Commission. M. Pobts (Greece) declared that no civifised State could dispense with armed forces altogether. The French delegate interposed to ask whether the Conference wanted to continue or postpone the discussion, as ho understood the Soviet delegation was willing that discussion should end if they could return to the subject on the second reading of the draft convention. Count Bernstorff (Germany) seeing, like everybody else, the way the wind was blowing, proposed this, adding the opinion that M. Litvinoff’s criticisms had been too severe. Eventually this was agreed tso, Count Bernstorff’s motion providing for the second reading a month before the next meeting of the Council. Tho question of the Security Commission was then raised. Mr Hugh Wilson, on behalf of the Unilted States, made a statement regard ing America’s decision not to participate. He declared the United States Government was convinced that so far as its rights in the Pacific were concerned a tour Power Pact concluded between Britain, the United States, Japan and France was adequate for -acirri ty. M. Litvinoff also (intimated that Russia did not desire to be represented, as he believed such a commission would diminish the importance of the Disarmament Conference and no real results would be obtained. At the suggestion of M. Loudon the meeting assented to Russia being represented at security discussions by an observer. ‘ UTOPIAN IDEALS” AMERICAN OFFICIALS’ COMMENT. SOVIET PROPOSALS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Received Dec. 1, 9 p.m. (A. & N.Z.) NEW YORK, Dec. 1. The New York Times’ Washington correspondent states that to-day s proposal by the Russian delegation at Geneva for the abolition of all land, naval and air forces is not being taken seriously by officials jiere. There is a tendency to look upon it as a mere gesture and the question of disarmament is regarded as being far more complicated than the tdeas advanced by the Soviet delegates, which were characterised as Utopian. SPEECH OUT OF ORDER LORD CUSHENDEN’S VIEWS. SAYS SOVIET PROPOSALS ARE IRRELEVANT. Received Dec. 1, 7.50 p.m. (A. & N.Z.) LONDON, Dec. 1. There was considerable comment it Geneva on the silence of the British delegation throughout proceedings. Lord Cushenden, in an interview', when aukea why hj had not participated, said: “I do not believe in talking when there is nothing to say. The business was supposed to have been entirely connected with procedure, and I have no exception to take to that.”"

Asked for his opinion regarding M. Litvinoff’s proposals, he replied: “According to the strict rules of procedure,, M. Litvinoff was entirely out of order, and had this incident arisen at Westminster I should immediately have jumped on it. Prom that standpoint, the whole of the Soviet proposals are quite irrelcvent and 1 quite agree they should be postponed until the whole matter of disarmament has progressed much further.” “A Clumsy Farce” The morning papers refuse to take M. Litvinoff seriously. The Daily Telegraph says its diplomatic correspondent describes his speech as a blatant form of platform progaganda and none but a simpleton would treat the performance seriously. The Morning Post publishes a headline “Soviet Farce —Bear in Sheep’s Clothing.” The Daily Chronicle says: “We may be sure the Russians have felt, no uneasiness in putting forward a programme which they knew they would not be called upon tc undertake them selves- ’ ’ The Daily News thinks there cannot be many deceived by this clumsy farce. Even tne Daily Herald, the Labour organ seems, to regard the scheme as a challenge than something practicable. QUICK TO REPLY M. BRIAND TAKES UP THE CHALLENGE. RUSSIA’S HUGE FORCES. Received Dec. 1, 8 p.m. (A. & N.Z.) PARIS, Dec. 1. While the Commission was sitting nt Geneva, M. Briand was already an&w?ring M. Litvinoff in the Chamber of Deputies at Paris. He asked: ‘‘lf we i tiling away our arms, how are we to be sure that others will do the same thing?” At the same time he mentioned that in Russia recently 700,000 men carried out i manoeuvres, whereas France, when the new army reorganisation was carried out, would have a stand- ’ ing force of only 1 450,000, compared with 990,000 in 1914. BIG REDUCTIONS BRITAIN’S CONTRIBUTION TO DISARMAMENT A SKELETON AIR FORCE (A. & N.Z.) LONDON, Nov. 30. The newspapers all discuss the disarmament question, “It is not British armaments that keep anyone awake at night,” states one, and it is also pointed out, that by the Locarno Treaties Britain displayed considerable altruism in taking on European commitments entirely to forward the cause of peace. Such policy is approved, and although there is no enthusiasm for further commitments which might involve Britain in issues which are not her concern, there is a •desire that the zeal for armament limitation shall not be abated and that it shall also bo reflected in the policy of other European nations. The Secretary for Air (Sir Samuel Hoare) dealt with some aspects of the British contribution towards peace in Europe in a speech at Cambridge University last night- Referring to the Treaty of Locarno, which he claimed was the result of British efforts, he said it represented for the first time sipce the . war a mutual treaty that was willingly signed between the victors and the j vanquished. On the more general field ' of peaceful endeavour there was no occasion on which the British Government had not thrown the whole weight of its influence into the scales of peace. Dealing with aerial disarmament, Sir Samuel recalled, that Britain had scrapped the great air force of the war and decided to embark on a programme that would give a modest force of defence. So anxious had the Government bc<n to avoid any expansion that when the Treaty of Locarno was signed, the programme was deliberately retarded anG even now an air force about half the size of the air force of the strongest neighbour was accepted.