A.—s

8

communication could be carried on between various parts of the same country without being interfered with by outside messages. It is, however, uncertain whether any such international agreements concluded in the near future would be of lasting value, having regard to the rapid progress of technique in radio-telephony. As to the political aspect of the question, I quote from the resolutions of the Sixth Committee regarding the work of intellectual co-operation : " Finally, it calls the attention of Governments to the danger of cinematographic performances and of broadcasting characterized by a spirit antagonistic to that of the League." The Second Committee's Report (Document A. 73) was presented to the Assembly on the 24th September, which passed the following resolution : — " The Assembly, noting the report of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit on the work of the organization between the eighth and ninth ordinary sessions of the Assembly, expresses its satisfaction with the normal progress of the organization's work." THIRD COMMITTEE. Disarmament. As a result of the signing of the Kellogg Pact in Paris a few days prior to the General Assembly at Geneva, it was considered probable that some definite steps in regard to disarmament would be taken by the Third Committee during the session. Moreover, a number of delegates expressed the views that, as ten years had elapsed since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of a League of Nations, it was imperative that the question of disarmament should emerge from the sphere of academic discussion, and they all felt that a practical solution should be found for what is recognized to be the most serious and difficult problem confronting the League of Nations. But soon the difficulties inherent in this problem began to show themselves. For instance, it was repeatedly stated by some delegates that before disarmament could take place their countries must have a guaranteed security ; while others remarked that small nations could not feel secure until the bigger nations effected considerable reduction in the large warlike establishments they now maintain. Further, a serious aspect arising from the fact that two powerful nations are still non-members of the League of Nations was mentioned by M. Paul Boncour (France), who clearly inferred that the signing of the Kellogg Pact by those two nations has not given the degree of security the European peoples require before they themselves undertake to effect further disarmament. The work of the Third Committee consisted largely in discussing and examining the two groups of model treaties drawn up by the Committee of Arbitration and Security, which are of two kinds— viz., (1) arbitration and conciliation, and (2) non-aggression and mutual assistance. The conclusion arrived at was to combine the three conventions dealing with arbitration and conciliation into one general Act, which, however, reserves the right of States to make bilateral agreements if they so desire. A number of delegates were of the opinion that too little time had been devoted to the drafting of this general Act, and that Governments concerned would probably require corrections to be made before they signed a convention adopting the Act in its present form. Objection was made by a number of delegates that this Act was put before the committee at a late stage of the Assembly, and, in spite of its great importance, was being rushed through committee before 1 delegates had time to refer it to their Governments. Generally, the discussions on disarmament revealed that the last Conference of the Preparatory Commission failed because preliminary conversations had not been previously held between representatives of the nations concerned with a view to getting partial agreement on important questions of principle. To obviate this sort of failure at the next Conference, Britain and France had recently endeavoured by secret negotiations to agree on certain questions concerning limitation of naval categories, particulars of which have since been made public. Although the action of these two Powers has been adversely criticized in both the American and European press, and they have been charged with carrying on " secret diplomacy in regard to armaments," it is recognized, at least at Geneva, that their efforts were to facilitate the work of the forthcoming Conference of the Preparatory Commission, and generally were in the interests of disarmament. Impressed with the idea that something of a practical nature should be done, the majority of the delegates expressed a desire to hasten the next Conference of the Preparatory Commission by fixing a date for its assembly within the next three months, regardless of whether the nations concerned had previously agreed upon matters which would form a basis for discussion. Lord Cushendun, with force, pointed out that if the Commission were called together before these private conversations had been held and the various Governments were ready to discuss details the Commission would again have to adjourn and admit failure, thereby creating a wrong impression throughout the world as to the competence of the League of Nations to deal with disarmament. It was noticeable that there seems to be a tendency on the part of some European delegates to assert that their Governments are in favour of immediate disarmament, but cannot do anything because the Great Powers will not agree to make a commencement. On the other hand, as before stated, a delegate of France expressed the view that little progress in disarmament could be made while Russia and the United States were outside the League. So that in the final result the sum total of the efforts of the Third (Disarmament) Committee has been to get the Assembly to ask the Council to request the Preparatory Commission to meet either before the end of 1928 or early in 1929. In so far as the British Empire is concerned, the general opinion expressed privately by delegates is that the British have reduced their military forces almost below the safety limit, and, with regard to her Navy, that she has at least endeavoured to come to an agreement with France in order to help the work of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference. Under the circumstances it appears improbable that this Commission will be able to effect any reduction in naval armaments, and that this great issue will stand over until the Washington Naval Conference in 1931.