DISARMAMENT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 25 November 1927, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

IMPORTANT DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS MR. MACDONALD'S MOTION. FOREIGN SECRETARY'S STATEMENT. [British Official Wireless.] (Received 25, 12.30 p.m.) Rugby, Nov. 24. An important debate took place in the House of Commons to-day on the subject of disarmament. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald moved: ‘'This House deplores the lack of preparation by the Government and the military character of the British delegation, which seriously contributed to the failure of the recent naval conference at Geneva and the slow progress made by the League of Nations preparatory commission for the disarmament conference and the refusal of the Government to accept the principle oi arbitration and proviue a scheme tor international security guaranteed by the League of Nations.”

Sir Austen Chamberlain, replying, referred to the resignation of Viscount Cecil and said that nobody regretted it more than he, for he and Lord Cecil had worked closely and harmoniously together on questions of foreign policy in general and, on matters that concerned the great question of disarmament, Lord Cecil bad been principal spokesman and representative of the British Government at Geneva.

THE REJECTED PROTOCOL.

Referring to Lord Cecil’s reasons for his resignation, Sir Austen mentioned that one of these was that we had rejected instead of amended the Protocol. He might say at once that the British Government’s first endeavour was to amend the Protocol and so bring it into a state which might have been acceptable to us and the other Governments of the Empire, but they found that amendments for that purpose would be of so extensive and deep-reaching a character as practically to make an altoegther different document. THE BRITISH DELEGATION. Replying to the criticism that the British delegation to the Three Power Naval Conference at Geneva was of a military character, Sir Austen Chamberlain said the British delegation consisted of two Cabinet Ministers and one Admiral. It was the least military of all the delegations represented. Another criticism was that wo entered the conference with insufficient preparation. This did not mean that the. British Government had not given the most careful thmvrht to the nrnnosals which thev could make and the concentration which they enuld bring to the further limitation nf armaments.

Th.au hart inrtaert rtrnwp tin a erhowp ivhirM rtynduced not only the limitation of VApunsiuu uyr wuuiu nase pruuuodu a laMi umiiauun ui au&'<-a-sive power. It wtus not, therefore, faiure in that kuld of reparation with which they were reproached. It was failure to deal with this matter through diplomatic channels belore they agreed to go into contereuce at all. It was said, in effect, that the failure of the conference was due to the failure oi the new diplomacy and some lack ol preparation through diplomatic channels before the conference. SOME BLAME TO HIMSELF. Sir Austen Chamberlain took some blame to himself that he did not try to secure further diplomatic preparation but it should be remembered, he said, that tile conference was not called on the British Government s invitation but the Lnited States. He did not consider whether he should ”■ to the United States Government at that moment, “Would it not be well before you make that proposal to consider upon what basis the conference should meet and whether there is such a measure of general agreement as would be likely to make the conference useful?” It the British Government did not do so it was lest they should appear in the eyes of the American Government to be seeking to evade acceptance of the invitation and lest Britain should appear to other people as seeming to be opposed ■to attempt further limitation of naval armaments. He thought it was a lesson that such diplomatic preparation was always desirable before a conference. It was also a lesson that only with great preparation could the League conference itself be brought to a successful conclusion. Those who would press these things before the ground-work was done were preparing for themselves the same disappointment that confronted us when we failed to reach agreement in the naval conference. INOPPORTUNE TIME. Referring to a resolution solemnly re-affirming the doctrine of the covenant of the League which declared that all war was crime, Sir Austen Chamberlain said he did not think the time had come for that kind of amend ment. He believed that the practice of psychology must be allowed, to grow before they could usefully undertake to change the whole nature oi the covenant and fill up those gaps which its founders purposely left because they felt that to make this stricture more rigid than it now was would be to risk its existence. Mr. .MacDonald had asked him if he was prepared to define “war of aggression." He was not. He thought the Leagua would make a great mistake if it attempted a definition. Sir Austen said ho did not believe it would be imoossible, anil he hoped if would not be very difficult, for the League, in n given moment, to (Coiiliniied on foot of next column )

say who was the aggressor in a particular quarrel but he thought that if they laid down tests by which they must be bound they would find the agrgessor would carefully conform to the/r particular tests aud would escape the liability which ought to follow upon his action just because of the precision of their definition.