Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISARMAMENT

SMOOTHING THE WAY Lord Cushendun Confirms Frenchman’s Statement BRITAIN AND HER NEEDS. (By Telegraph—Per Press asjd.—Copy rurM.J (By Radio) RUGBY, March 25. A statement made by M. Chauzel (France) at the Geunva Preparatory Commission that important conversations were proceeding, which would make smoother the path to disarmament, was corroborated at yesterday’s session by the British delegate, Lord Cushendun.

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 . ot in a position to ~ivc definite information as to the precise stage reached, he knew enough to say that M. Chauzel had every justification for the information he had given.

At the close of the session Lord Cushendun made a statement to tne Press, in which, referring to M. Litvinoff’s reply to his criticism, he said that it amounted to an admission that the Soviet did not regard civil war as warThe 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 o<f authentic figures showing that enormous sums had been spent by the" Soviet in supplying arms to the Chinese Nationalists.

Great Britain’s part at Shanghai had been taken purely for the protection of the lives of 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 possibilities like that of Shanghai. Foreign nations always expected Britain to lead, and there was considerable feeling in England itself that Britain ought to disarm more now because no war was imminent. Nations and critics did not, however, realise what Britain had already done. From th e point of view of tactics it would have been better if she had done nothing. What a sensation could then have been made if the British delegate had been able to state that Britain was prepared to scrap, say, 2000 fighting ships of a total tonnage of 2,000,000. Yet, as a matter of fact, Britain had don e 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. Ii was also Great Britain which had prepared the first draft convention for a reduction of armaments.

Finally Lordl Cushendun expressed his desire for a greater admixture at Geneva of realism with idealism, and more patience by all those seeking disarmament. LEAGUE CRITICISED GERMANY LOSING PATIENCE. THE POWERS’ OBLIGATIONS. (A. & N.Z.) BERLIN, March 25. ‘ ‘ General disarmament is an obligation towards the German people and cannot be postponed without possibly straining Germany’s patience,” says a semi-official newspaper reflecting on the official attitude at the recent session at Geneva. It adds: “Germany fails to understand why the other side is avoiding the obligations.”

The newspapers generally support Count Bernstoff’s outburst at Friday’s meeting. The Taglische Zeitung says That if the League is incapable of carrying out disarmament it is no use to anybody in Germany. 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. BRITAIN’S NAVAL PLANS COLD RECEPTION BY OTHER POWERS. COMMENT AT GENEVA. Received March 26, 10.20 p.m. (A & N.Z.) LONDON, March 25. The special Geneva correspondent of the Daily Chronicle says Lord Cushendun’s naval disarmament proposals have been coldly received by representatives of other Powers. The Italian delegate, when questioned, merely shrugged his shoulders. Baron Sato said in regard to capital ships, that his Government had not made up it’s mind, but he doubted if Japan’s views on that difficult question had changed.

M. Chauzel said such proposals wore interesting, as there was always a chance that negotiations might lead to some important result.

American circles received the proposals frigidly, pointing out that Britain has new ships such as the Rodney and Nelson, which are the largest yet launched. America would be privileged to build such ships in 1929, but Lord Cushendun’s proposal would prevent this and thus destroy the equality of the basis of the Washington Agreement.

THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE. NO COMMENT AT PRESENT. Received March 26, 11 p.m. (A. & N.Z.) WASHINGTON, Mar. 26. There will be no official comment on the British proposal for the 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 a reduction would weaken the strategic value of the fleet, handicapped by the absence of bases in a manner not felt by the

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19280327.2.31

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20106, 27 March 1928, Page 7

Word Count
824

DISARMAMENT Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20106, 27 March 1928, Page 7

DISARMAMENT Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20106, 27 March 1928, Page 7