DISARMAMENT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19168, 26 November 1927, Page 15

DISARMAMENT.

Geneva Failure. GOVERNMENT BLAMED. Sir Mac Donald's Motion Lost. The failure of the Naval Conference at Geneva was the . to f a lengthy debate in the House of Commons follow--Btt J fflot j on moved by Mr Ramsay Mac Donald deploring If Government's lack of preparation and the military haracter of the British delegation which it was declared contributed to the breakdown of the proceedings. Th Labour motion was defeated by 318 votes to 105, and an ndment, moved by Mr A. Duff Cooper, to the effect that T House approved of the Government's policy, was carried by 288 votes to 66.

Reived November 25th, 7.25 p.m.) LONDON, November 24. *Bi«»7 Mac Donald, in submitting Armament Motion, expressed the STthat the Geneva Naval Confer- « «J bungled from beginning to \ Britain failed to scout the field L joining the battle, the only L rt of an Anglo-American Agreo-.-I and on American Agreement with Trot of the world was for Britain %erica.to come together and reJtta chance of war. The ConferZ. failed, because war methods m- : ad of peace methods were followed, j:£rfj being allowed to usurp politic- ; 3 functions. Britain was pledged |ser ftvery Peaco Treaty to promote :.!ji and disarmament, but no real Dis-|-iitumt Conference was yet held, only ijwslosg how to reduce armaments in I'jfci to sa™ money. He was not injggted in disarmament as an economic m but as a means of removing the nrld'l irnst in arms. The world must Wii into a frame of mind for taking inuity for granted, pursuing arbitrate lj ordinary civilised methods d Milling disputes. loij Cecil's statement of the manKin which he was hampered when(Tir he came to a proposal of practical farmament was' unanswerable. ParliaKil'i dnty Was to compel the Govgmeit to carry out the country's palp(B( intention and go ahead quickly towii disarmament, arbitration, and seHritf. H jtho Government faced thetblem of common security there would. ID difficulty from the viewpoint of at Dominions. As Eussia was joining l tie' explorations of security could jnticiSirAusten Chamberlain's duty m ; .tO:bring the Empire as a united jmrfol force' into the councils of Eujttt.'ißct contribute to a system of fto. Sir Austen Chamberlain appearMt'bi letting Up the Empire against Bjleigoe. Bfl was quite mistaken. It under the British GovBjfttiVi, prompting the Governments wAiittalij'.and Canada rojected the bWh'l924, but the Protocol was wly draft. Mr Mac Donald Wtreitljiif the Empire could find a fora »lfti was not-, merely words. ■ ftiuten Chamberlain Replies. < SMoiten Chamberlain, roplying, »d Hit Lord Cecil's reasons for rcdpigVwere: First; Mr Mac Donald's •n rejection of a Treaty of mutual •wee; second, the present GovWaeat's opposition to the Protocol; tijfi, dissatisfaction with the Naval Werence. The Government found U»t the attempt to amend the Protocol »nld necessitate entire recasting. The Government was charged with not makH diplomatic preparations before the w»l Conference. Hitherto the opposition had attacked him for sticking » methods of bid diplomacy instead of •Ny facing the world without previ•m backstair understanding. He acmi some of the blame for the lack "diplomatic preparation, bat the Connate was held at the invitation of Ue United States, and the British GovWoent refrained from seeking a prcttiJiry understanding lest it should •PPeu to America to bo seeking to IT |J e acceptance of the invitation. .»»debate was interrupted by the ■■"* lights of the whole of West""Wer Palace Buddonly. going out. Jf. j.^ r w< C. Bridgeman summed on behalf of the Govern'He pointed out that the Labour rbr wm *. he fsret *° iay down ttJ V on cr <«sers, which were auJP* by, the Washington Confertti. .? Ws opinion it was the best «»g they ever did. It was useless "Wmd that there was a war-like The whole country W « rof P eace - Even the Nations sometimes looked to tf «>ush Navy to control the peace * we world. ill" * motion was defeated by ■™ Wtes to 105; y ; ,An Amendment. ''JW,. D " ff Cooper's amendment, ftftil • se > "cognising that the awST*** efforts have been con * m JK Cted t0 the maintenance of of armaments-and W. " ?ment of the authority of the *Wib7i. eni6ißS opposed to Britain astfcii Lv , extende<J dangerous obligatid ,w odied in th ° Protocol of 1924 f'Ppoves of the Government's '» : *»« carried by 288 votes to *ta *? W Cable Btated; Mr M » cI)on - will move a motion to»C a Governm ent's lack of preU ( *l'x the mili *ary character of fi«, which, the mott«f«in ' Beri <"isly contributed to S«l TT,° f thc Naval Conference at Wp, e . ihe ; slow progress by the N's/? 18 attri buted to the Govern*;»'bitrr *" accept the P rinci P le *H W V? n an d promote a scheme Hl« security guaranteed Outlawing Wars. when the lighting was red ' Sir Austen Chamberbought the lesson of the Siatio Me Was that di P lomatic Hiß.. n , w »s always necessary ceSl R would a,so be be . 6at P ro Parations that there Nlent ° ope o£ tho Lea g ue ' s dis " "Veae *\ n con ferenco succeeding. *»lttr,, JJ wanted to hurry and press 8 tne P° nni w'as prepart *ti'the?? ,ntment as was ex P erienc " l*»W *" Con forence. Apropos *hi Assembly resolution out--®i»ta of ' agression, Sir Austen .ijjfJ 10 ' Prepared to defend ag- . tte thought the League was M^&b7y w *" in attempting it. ||p«trnle. for nnknowi future

circumstances would probably lead to an occasion -when the unhappy term "definition" would enable an obvious victim of aggression to be described as the aggressor. "I do not think it will be impossible for the League in individual cases to apportion the blame, but I believe a rigid definition will bo a trap for the innocent and a signpost for the guilty." Eeplying to Mr Eamsay Mac Donald's definition of an aggressor as a party refusing arbitration, Sir Austen Chamberlain pointed out that the covenant already bound the signatories not' to go to war until they had exhausted every method of judicial arbitration or conciliation by the League Council, "but do not let us underrate the limitations which the covenant itself puts on the right to go to war or the obligation to exhaust peaceful methods before going to war," he said. He would be the last man to suggest that the Government's present attitude ought to be Britain's attitude all tho time. Tho Government had not agreed to sign the optional clause on arbitration because last year's Imperial Conference had agreed it would be premature. All the British parties agreed that oven if it were signed there would have to be reservations, such as everything concerning Dominions' relations within the Empire or internal matters within the jurisdiction of the State itself. Sense of Security. "What contribution to the sense of general security would such a restricted signature give if we were not prepared to make engagements in advance, which, before their fulfilment, might require the legislation of seven Parliaments? This does not mean that we are not I ready to use arbitration to the fullest J measure," he said. "I hope English- ; men, at least, will not forget what Britain has done in the matter of disarmament or arbitration. "We have arbitrated more, and moTe important disputes, than any other country in the world, for instance, the Aiabama question, and the Eussian destruction of British fishing boats on the Dogger Bank, though the latter question was.one concerning the honour of our flag. We arbitrated about the Alaskan Boundary, though many Canadians were of the opinion they would therein have sacrificed vital interests. We arbitrated about the Mosul boundary. Those were four gigantic questions in which we accepted arbitration, but we cannot undertake in advance to arbitrate all cases when we feel we may not have power to assure obedience to an adverse award. "We have practisced arbitration in the past, and hope to do so in the future. We had to take new and large risks in the Treaty of Locarno, which was an immense contribution to the security of Europe. Meeting iMfficulties. Sir -Austen Chamberlain said he did not pretend there would be no further trouble in Europe, but they could meet difficulties in a more cheerful spirit and with greater confidence since Locarno. The Governmmts of the States of the Empire who had not signed the protocol had their own reasons for not doing so. "I have no reason to believe any or them have changed their minds, he said "Would Mr Mac Donald be prepared to place Britain and all her res -rces at the mercy of the League's machinery, without our people having anv control! If not, Mr Mac Donald would be-more usefully employed definrngmuch of the.protocol he would adopt, what new obligations ho would Stake, and how he would fulfil ttomVti** in talking and vaguely raisnThopes he could not fulfil, and spreading uncertainty instead of . confidence T& common argument against signing was Sat unless all went in the proposals could not be carried out. The Protocol. Sir Austen Chamberlain continued everyone f^ oure(l „\ e said , "nothing oP-ting the world except Britain. The reai the P agitation . British Naw would not oe 01 »<• fit* League for the purpose of an. commends in order of the world, n p restricted the SJ&SuSr coS heir, to remove misunderstandings we, j do so. herß .„ w « 1 p Mosul' we accepted power b» a?" »•" ''"it? or toMr Lloyd George's Views. Mr David Lloyd George thought Sir as there were huge arm iU tion world, arbitrataon and o WOuld , b °r B Creduce'armaments. & therefore, was to reauce a the presen moment logoo£ Europe could be J/ wor j d had with equipment .«J a d dest ruction. never seen * or D Sl me nt Commission The League* »iMaui had made no was outtwo years because conscript aide the Britain and countries complied k ?T2L7 were increasing naval ex•bout peate, were 1 taken fof taken for war. He 5m Sot see much risk. There was no fcd notjee muc Disraeli's en rLn«bury's t me. -The defence of ot the

national income. Now it was costing 3 1 per cent., though the German fleet was at the bottom of the ocean and ours at present could engage and sink all the fleets of Europe. . -The Government at the beginning of its regime had formulated a naval programme which involved the expenditure of £65,000,000 to £70,000,000 on new ships. We were the pioneers of arbitration. Now the feeling at Geneva is that we are holding back, and stopping Mr Lloyd George hoped that Sir Austen Chamberlain at Geneva would use his influence for disarmament and arbitration, "without which, I think, in the not distant future, there will be such an upheaval as the world has never "Let Them Have It." Mr A. Duff Cooper, in moving his amendment, said: "If the United States want the biggest navy in the world let them have it. We should protect our shores and commerce from every'menace, but 1 do not include America as a possible attacker. That is the only way of beating the Big Navy Party in America." . Mr N E. Buxton said the pillars of Labour's policy were disarmament, arbitration, and security. Sir Austen Chamberlain had professed great friendship for the League, but was always attempting to check its activities. He was like a hen continually warning ducklings not to take to water. "BIG NAVY" SPEECH. (AUSTRALIAN AND »-Z CAWJ! ASSOCIATION.) (Received November 25th, 9.40 p.m.) NEW YORK, November 24. The "New York Times" Washington correspondent states: "The Big Navy" speech attributed to .Captain White in Paris is considered inopportune at least in official circles, coming as it did at a time when there was hope for reasonable adjustments of naval construction programme. Official comment was declined. Senator Wilbur has corrected the impressions in Paris that the speech was delivered after approval in Washington, where nothing was known of it until the newspaper accounts appeared. That the United States wants to be in the best position to defend herself is not disputed, but the administration would regret any implication of developing a navy aimed to outstrip Britain or any other Power in the competitive armament race.