GENEVA CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 1 December 1927, Page 3

GENEVA CONFERENCE

THE OPENING SPEECHES. THE RUSSIAN VIEWPOINT. (Australian it N.Z. Cable Association.) (Received this day at 11.25 a.m.) GENEVA, Nov. 30. There was not the usual free, easy atmosphere in the secretariat, from which the public were excluded, while journalists were admitted only oil production of a special card, with their photograph. Dozens of gendarmes and detectives mustered on the portico where the Soviet delegates, heavily muffled in furs, were the last to arrive, ten minutes after the appointed hour. There was no demonstration. Little time was wasted on formalities. Jonkelr Loudon devoted more words to regretting the absence of Lord Cecil and do Brouckere, than to a welcome to the Russians, into whose hands Count Bernstorlf instantly played, saying he had been wrongly suspected of desiring to move the second reading of the disarmament convention. A more important tiling was first to give the delegates an opportunity of explaining their government’s viewpoints.

This, Litvinoff amply did, in excellent English, winning bis wife’s nods of approval. Beginning with the stereotyped formula “Militarism is a child of Capitalism,” lie went on to declare the whole post-war history was a record of increased armaments. None of the League’s solemn promises had been fulfilled. The imminence of war was making itself felt everywhere. If the discussions remained in the old channels they would inevitably lead to further increases within legalised limits. The Soviet genuinely desired to contribute to peace, and the disarmament of Europe, in which the people, enfeebled by the great war, were struggling against a new imperialist war. There was no suggestion of security when Russia was first invited and its discussions would now embarrass her. It would be better to discuss disarmament first and security afterwards. Litvinoff added—The Soviet was ready with a scheme of general disarmament, spread over four years, plus an intensive peace propaganda. All the Commission’s work hitherto was decorative. The League had been fruitlessly wrestling for seven years. Litvinoff then read the Soviet’s proposals. In view of the published statements that Russia in recent years has been specialising in chemical warfare, special notice was attracted by LitvinofF’s declaration : “We fully endorse the prohibition of chemical warfare. The only secure means of ensuring its suppression is the placing of power in the capitalist countries in the hands of the workers, who would see that such prepartions were not made.

He continued—The money saved from war budgets could quickly he devoted to productive and cultural ends. Litvinoff thereafter submitted the Soviet motion. GENEVA, Nov. 30. M. Litvinoff moved that whereas tlie existence of armaments and the tendency of their growth would inevitably lead to armed conflicts, diverting workers and peasants from peaceful, productive labour, bringing in its train countless disaster; that whereas an armed force is a weapon in the hands of great powers for the oppression of small and colonial countries; whereas the complete abolition is the only real means to guarantee against an outbreak of war, this Commission resolves to proceed immediately with tlie working out of details to draft a convention for the complete general disarmament, and convenes not later than March 1928 the Disarmament Conference to discuss and confirm the proposals. Litvinoff after moving the resolution, presented details of the proposals. The included the dissolution of the personnel of armies, navies and air forces of destruction, all material cessation, including the abolition of service, whether voluntary or conscripted; also the release of reservists from their obligations, the destruction of fortresses, naval air bases, factories, and arsenals, the prohibition of warlike allocation of ministries, departments and staffs, prohibition of training and education, both national and local ; prohibition of warlike patents, with a view to removing the motive theieto. Finally, national legislation making infringements of the foregoing a grave crime. A year to be allowed for the destruction of material, to commence without delay, and for a general disarmament to enable capitalist states to disband standing armies.

Resuming the discussion in the afteinoon iVI. Boncour emphasised that the Soviet meant to scrap the old progress and begin new methods. “If we sank every ship and sent home every soldier, the men would still remain sailors and soldiers.” He said it meant leaving the whole of the nations at the mercy of the big nations unless an international force was created to resist attacks. The League had decided that security must precede disarmament, so it must continue on those lines. If the Soviet delegates were sincere they would follow the others to find the best way out of the entanglement. There was only one way out of a forest when lost namely, always go in one direction.

Before adjourning, the Commission postponed till the spring session the discussion of the Soviet’s proposals Litvinoff assenting. THE SOVIET WAY. GENEVA, Nov. 30.

“This is the milleiiium.” “To big a menu for lunch.’’ “Quite Utopian.’’ “So simple it is n wonder it was not proposed before.” These were a few of the lobby lunchtime comments after Litvinoff had expounded. to the preparatory disarmament commission, the Soviet’s sweeping i disarmament proposals. The closing of two streets flanking the Secretariat, and the presence of a police pilot car ahead of that containing Litvinoff and his English wife, and two colleagues wore the only outward signs of special measures to protect the Soviet trio, who have come virtually to tell the rest of the world to get on with the job, and to show it how it can bo done.