LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1922, Page 3

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. DISAILMAMENT COMMITTEE. GENEVA, Sept. 12. At a meeting of the Disarmaments Committee to-night, Lord Cecil will submit regional proposals based on the report of the temporary mixed commission on armaments, which lias been sitting during the past year. His proposal provides for a general defensive agreement, binding on the signatories to render immediate, effective assistance in accord a ilce with a pre-arranged plan, “provided the obligation to render assistance to the country attacked he limited in principle to those countries situated in tile same part of the globe.” Regarding naval disarmament he is proposing to ask the Assembly to summon an international conference including States which did not sign the Washington Treaty, with a view to inducing them to sign the Treaty, for which purpose a draft convention will be submitted to the conference. The committee also propose asking the Assembly to authorise the preparation of a scheme of land disarmament for submission to all nations. Meanwhile the committee, on the motion of the English delegation, appointed subcommittees to collect military and naval data from all nations, whereon to found schemes of disarnioment. I

Lord Cecil interviewed, explained ilm regional scheme would permit.the formation of groups in the Pacific. One group might include Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and other British Islands, the second Japan, India, and other British possessions in the same region, or both might combine. This was a matter for the nations concerned to determine themselves :.o•oording to the mutuality of interests and capacity for rendering material assistance. The question whether there was one or a dozen groups was immaterial. Either was consistent with the principle. His proposals provided that the conn trios concerne 1 possessed the means of defence ana were prepared to use. those means on each other’s behalf. Obviously Japanese, British and Australian naval and economic resources such as coaling stations and food supplies would be important factors in the formation of any groups. LORD CECIL’S RESOLUTIONS. LONDON, Sept. 13. The Australian Press Association s corresp indent at Geneva reports: — “When the Disarmament Committee resumed last night, there was a lull attendance, and there was general support for Lord' Robert Cecil’s resolution. “The exception was the Scandinavian delegates, who feared that the guarantees concerned would necessitate an increase in armaments, not for se!L protection, blit on the score that they were to safeguard the other members in the same regional group. “S'i- W. Fielding (Canada) poinlc 1 out that, whatever the committee <ie.

eidod upon, lie could not pledge Canada to enter into any pact that might involve her in lighting for some nicinlipi- of (lie sam* 1 group, notwithstanding all treaties and guarantees. Tie ( iiii:iclian Parliament, he said, must, in the last resort, decide whether Canada should render military .assistance to any other member c.f a group. Any ether policy than that would be, m direct variance with the Canadian conception of self-government. Sir W. Fielding said he imagined that the other British dominions would act thus and take a similar view.

Lord R. Cecil, in reply, said Canada could not become a party to a pact except by the authority of the Canadian Parliament. If it did not approve, he would not sanction such a compact. If it approved, he presumed that it would honour its pledge, the same as, it would he expected, the other parties to a compact would honour theirs, supposing that Canada was attacked bv an enemy.

Mr Sheldon moved the rejection of the first of Lord Cecil’s series of resolutions. It was a case, lie said, in which no schei,ne for a reduction of armaments can ever he fully successful unless it is a general scheme. “.Mr Sheldon argued that L ;rd Cecil’s plan contemplated a world-will: 1 organisation for mutual defence. He had stated that disarmament would he ineffective, unless it were practically universal, which meant that small groups, for mutual defence, would be impossible, except as part of a universal scheme". Disarmament would thus he held up until the whole world nooepted the policy. Why, he asked, should not small groups of nations agree, among themselves, to reduce I|ieir armaments, and to protect each other, regardless of the rest of toe world ?

“He did not like, and did not wi.-\ to bring his own country into the finmission, Imt he might instance tlm South American republics. AA’liv should not thev form their own group, nnd enter it contract for a reduction of armaments for mutual protection, not waiting until the world was converte i. Many such small groups might h • formed outside Europe, and outsid ■ the danger zone. Therefore, they would he able to discard costly armaments, and to rely on each other’s protection. The mere fact of disarming would, in itself, lie equal to the mutual guarantees. “Air Sheldon moved a resolution. “That the reduction of iirnmnienl“ must necessarily prove unsuccessful unless it becomes general, and t.nu would discourage the formation < small groups.’ “.Afr Sheldon’s motion was overwhelmingly negatived. “The •Japanese representatives (x-----plained that, iiltlioufjli l»<* had voted Kir Lord Cecil’s resolution. 10s vote «'■«’ not necessarily hind his Government. “All of Lord Cecil’s resolutions were carried.” NAURU MANDATE. (Received this day at 10.15 a.m.', GENEVA. Scot. 13. The sub-committee, Dr Nansen m"siding. missed a resolution G,„ 1-rd Robert Cecil’s motion. Richsupporting) denying the Commission’s fn.llegatioim that Gw. Britain. Australia and New /eal.ui I reserved to themselves the plinsnhut' rights. It is anticipated there will e another fight when the sub-commit report reaches the full comnnttee.