GENEVA CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 21 May 1926, Page 2

GENEVA CONFERENCE

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.]

GENEVA, May 19. Following Lord Cecil’s renewal of the argument of disarmament, an enquiry to be based on peace time standards, it was decided to appoint a drafting committee to endeavour to draw up a formulae meeting the British and French viewpoints, the latter holding in such limitation that cognisance should he paid to the rapidity wherewith other-States can come to the assistance of a State attacked. LEAGUE COUNCIL. LONDON, May 29. The difficulty of defining was discussed in striking speeches at Geneva. Lord Cecil (Britain) suggested that " a great step would he accomplished if conscription were abolished. M. Boncour (France) immediately answered that some countries preferred professional armies. M. Pure/, (Argentine) cited Switzerland as the most heavily armed nation in the world per head of population, and yet she had never been accused of being offensively armed. Lord Cecil rose with a cynical smile and asked: “Is any force in the world acknowledged to be maintained for the purposes of aggression.-” He proceeded to maintain that submarines were always offensive. M. Boncour argued that in certa-Mi*.**" circumstances submarines were defen-

The Spanish delegate '.agreed with this.

Mr Gibson (America) contended that only coastal fortification and forts iar removed from the frontier could ho classified as defensive, while offensive armament, lie said, consisted ot anything dominating the right or the territories of foreign countries. At the same time, he pointed out that offensive weapons could easily be re-, gurded as defensive when a nation, was defending its own honour. M. Parcz (Argentine) said that the spirit of peoples rather than armaments constituted dangers.

M. Boncour iusisted that the commission must seek to limit offensive armaments to the fullest extent, leaving the Lciigue of Nations free regarding defensive armaments. Then rose M. Dehrouekere, greybearded, but a fine, upstanding figure, who brought war from the abstract to reality. He pictured a great gas attack on la modern city whose inhabitants had first been driven from their houses by an aerial bombardment, and then were asphyxiated by gas. It was imperative, he said, that the Commission should limit the industrial potentialities. “Chemical warfare '.s so terrible,” he said, “that wo are almost tempted to prohibit aviation, whereby it becomes possible; but I am convinced that it will bo possible to devise |a system of control • which will greatly lessen the dangers.” ° The debate was adjourned.