§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
§ 11.8 p.m.
§ Mr. MANDERI desire to call attention to the situation at the meeting of the Commission of the Disarmament Convention at Geneva which is dealing with the American draft proposals on the manufacture and trade in arms, and the 1907 information disclosed as to the attitude of the representative of the British Government, Lord Stanhope. When the Debates took place in this House in December last the spokesman of the Government gave us every reason to believe that the representatives of the British Government were going out to the discussions in Geneva full of enthusiasm and determination to play a leading and active part in co-operating and supporting the American Government in order to make a real success of the proposals that the Americans had brought forward. It is, therefore, very disappointing to find that quite a different situation has actually developed during the past two weeks. Lord Stanhope has put down a number of amendments, and in opening speech he dealt with the views of the British Government. I admit that he put forward certain proposals that are a definite improvement on the present draft, but, apart from that, his whole effort on behalf of the British Government seems to have been to weaken and remove useful points and to whittle away the main advantages of the scheme.
I cannot help feeling that if the attitude of the British representatives is persisted in to the end—I can hardly believe that it will be—it may prove fatal to any agreement being reached on this useful piece of work. The first point to which I would refer is the attitude of the British representatives with regard to the setting up of a permanent disarmament commision. In that case they are proposing that it should not form part of the present Protocol at all, and they are suggesting that it should be set up with very limited powers in a separate convention that may be signed no one knows when. They are further proposing as amendments to Article 7 that the information to be supplied to Geneva about the categories, numbers, and particulars of the different armaments manufactured shall be severely limited. Instead of giving the actual totals for each individual article, there are to be total values only—information which will be very much less useful than that in the original proposals. But the main objection, which I think has caused a good deal of dismay in many circles in this country, some of them by no means unfriendly to the Government, is to the persistent attitude so far taken up in opposition to the 1908 American proposal for international inspection of armament factories. I should like to read an extract from the speech of Lord Stanhope, in which he sets out clearly the general position of the Government on this matter. He said:
Let me deal with the question of supervision, which forms the subject of Chapter 4 of the United States draft. That chapter makes provision for an elaborate system of permanent and automatic supervision. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards such a system in connection with a disarmament convention is set forth in their memorandum of 29th January, 1934. Let me quote the actual words of their statement, as I wish to avoid any misunderstanding on the matter:'His Majesty's Government affirm their willingness, if general agreement is reached on all other issues, to agree with the application of a system of permanent and automatic supervision, to come into force with the obligations of the convention 'that is, a convention for a reduction and limitation of armaments.If that really is the ultimate view of the British Government, it seems a little unfortunate that Lord Stanhope, speaking one day in Committee, should have used these words about that point, that it was necessary to have confidence in the sincerity of the contracting States, and added that if that confidence did not exist, it was no use trying to conclude a convention, if that argument is sound, that is an argument against the major policy of the Government itself in agreeing to international inspection in, a general convention. He has used arguments which were entirely contradictory, and he has been taking up that attitude on a point which had already been conceded by the British Government more than a year ago. The seriousness of the position lies in the fact that the United States Government, not always co-operating in the most useful way, or restricted by their constitutional difficulties in working with us, have on this occasion taken an admirable initiative, under President Roosevelt's instructions at Geneva, and are very keenly and sincerely doing their best to put an agreement through, in this limited sphere. That being so, I should have thought His Majesty's Government would have desired to do everything in its power to work closely and in agreement with the American Government, particularly when no principle was involved. The United States are supported in their attitude on this point, and on 1909 others, by France, Russia, Spain, Czechoslovakia, China, and indeed all the important States which are taking part in the discussions at the present time.The only State that is giving us any support and sympathy is Italy. I do not know what the motive of the Government may be. Possibly they want—I have heard it suggested—to keep this up their sleeve for some bargaining purpose later on, but I hope they will take a wider view, whatever they may think of the merits of the proposal. Seeing that no point of principle is involved, it is more important to be in close co-operation, contact and sympathy with the American Government. For that reason alone they ought to make concessions on this point, and recognise the general feeling of practically all the States who are now entering into the discussion.
The Government have recently done very much better in the realm of foreign policy. They have had a great success in the Saar issue; they have brought forward the hopeful proposals which concern the Air Pact and all the other schemes that go with it. That may be a little clouded by the unfortunate blunder of the White Paper, but, however that may be, I would make an appeal to the Government to recognise the unanimity of feeling in Geneva and the importance of co-operating with America. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the last word has not been said at Geneva, and that the Government are willing, as the discussions go on, if there is a preponderance of feeling, to fall in with the views of the other Powers.
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden)I make no complaint of the hon. Member raising this matter to-night, particularly as I think there is some misapprehension on the subject, perhaps inside the House, and certainly outside; and I should like to remove that misapprehension if I can. His Majesty's Government are certainly not opposed to the setting up of a Permanent Disarmament Commission. On the contrary, we should like it to be set up forthwith. The only question is whether it shall be set up under a separate protocol or as part of a protocol dealing with arms traffic. As a practical measure we thought it better, and it was, if I recollect aright so thought in the Bureau when it discussed the 1910 problem, to set up the commission separately from the protocol on arms traffic, for a reason which will appeal to the House, namely, that the permanent commission would, we hope, have to deal with many subjects outside the arms traffic and trade in arms. Therefore, we propose a separate protocol. It is not an issue of any magnitude, nor should we wish to hold out against any unanimous view to the contrary.
There remains the problem of what is generally called permanent and automatic supervision. A system of supervision can be said to consist of two parts, a basis and a superstructure. The basis is in the main documentary; it takes the form of returns made by Governments to a Permanent Disarmament Commission at Geneva. These documents would be examined, collated and checked by the Permanent Disarmament Commission, who could of course question Governments upon them, either through their representatives or in any other way. His Majesty's Government are agreed that some system of supervision such as I have described is an essential part of any convention, whether it deals with the wider issue of disarmament or with the limited object of regulation of the trade in and manufacture of arms.
Now we come to what I call the superstructure of supervision, that is to say periodic inspection on the spot by visiting supervisory committees, despatched by the Permanent Disarmament Commission from Geneva, to check by examination of persons and documents, the accuracy of certain returns made on the instructions of the Permanent Disarmament Commission. That is what I call the superstructure of supervision and that might well form an essential part in a Disarmament Convention. It is only natural that if the nations should agree among themselves to reduce or limit their armaments they should wish to be assured that the terms which are so vital to their national defence are being fully carried out by everyone. If, for instance, we had all agreed that there should be no more six-inch guns constructed in the world, it would be natural that nations should wish to ensure as far as possible, by some system of inspection that no one was providing himself with guns in excess of six inch calibre. I would certainly not contest that view, and the Government have in fact already, as long ago as 1911 January of last year, stated their willingness to agree to the application of a system of permanent and automatic supervision as part of a disarmament convention. I can assure the hon. Member that there has been no change in our position in that respect.
But the purpose of the Articles of the Convention now being discussed at Geneva is quite different. They have nothing to do with Disarmament; they do not involve a reduction or limitation of armaments in any way at all. They are concerned solely with the trade in and manufacture of arms. It is clear, surely, to us at any rate, that for this limited purpose what I call the basic part of supervision is required. The only difference, if difference there is, between the hon. Member and myself is whether for the inevitably limited and wholly different purpose of the Articles now being discussed at Geneva, a simplified or more limited form of supervision is called for. I share with the hon. Member his belief in the need for some international supervision, some supervisory mechanism in connection with any convention to deal with the trade in and the manufacture of arms. We need, I think, to make sure that the mechanism that we apply for this purpose is not too elaborate or too complicated for its successful operation. The type of supervision called for in connection with the disarmament convention is not necessarily the same as that required for a convention dealing solely with the trade in and the manufacture of arms. The hon. Member appeared to be a little critical of us for our action in putting down amendments to the draft articles though some of them much enlarged the scope of what was originally proposed. The procedure we are following is perfectly normal. These draft articles have only been taken by the Committee as the basis of discussion, and a number of Governments, including the United States Government, have in fact handed in amendments for discussion during what I may call the committee stage, which is now about to begin. Nor would I like the House to think that we are alone taking the view that I have just described in respect of the type of supervision to be applied to this type of convention. The view of the Italian Government is very close to our own, and the Polish Government has 1912 also taken an attitude somewhat similar to our own.
I must make it clear that we are in full accord with the underlying purpose of the draft articles which are now being discussed. The purpose embodied in our amendments is to simplify the means by which the objective aimed at in these Articles can be realised without impairing the effectiveness of the final result. Some little experience of negotiations in these matters at Geneva has convinced me that the simpler are the methods used to achieve the objective we desire to achieve, the more likely we are to succeed in realising them. The House must not overlook the fact that the proposals now under discussion at Geneva, if amended in the form suggested by us and approved by certain other delegations, would none the less constitute a most important contribution in dealing with this problem of the manufacture of and trade in arms.
I would ask the House, in conclusion, to note that the question at issue is not whether there shall or shall not be supervision but whether the supervision to be applied shall be of a simpler or of a more complicated nature. In dealing with this matter of the trade in and the manufacture of arms, I suggest that in the course of the discussion at Geneva it will be found that the reasons we have advanced are not unimportant in securing the practical result which we are seeking.
§ 11.26 p.m.
§ Sir HERBERT SAMUELI hope that His Majesty's Government will consider this matter again. I confess that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did not carry great conviction. He said that if it were a large convention for limiting arms in general, for example, for prohibiting the manufacture of six inch guns, it was necessary to be assured that it was being carried out. If inspection is necessary to make sure that a larger proposal is being carried out, is it not equally necessary to make sure that a smaller proposal is being carried out?
§ Sir H. SAMUELIn order to make sure that the returns are correct.
§ Sir H. SAMUELNo, but it is expected that arms to be manufactured should be declared as such. It is the purpose of this Convention that there should be publicity. Suppose that a return is sent from some country, and it is thought that it is misleading and that, as a matter of fact, three times as many arms are being manufactured and being sent surreptitiously to some other country; what power is there to investigate on the spot in order to make sure whether that is true or not? That is the point at issue. The right hon. Gentleman used the word simplification. It is a charming word, but may not simplification mean nullification. It is difficult to see why if a particular form of procedure is necessary for the larger purpose it is not necessary for the smaller pur 1914 pose. The fact that His Majesty's Government are only supported by Italy and Poland among the nations, and that we are taking a directly opposite attitude from that of the United States and many other Powers, is in itself rather significant that His Majesty's Government are not necessarily in the right in this matter. However, the whole question is still in a fluid state, the matter is still under discussion, Amendments are still being considered, and I reiterate the hope that the matter will receive further consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.