ARMAMENTS

Grey River Argus, 17 February 1927, Page 5

ARMAMENTS

FRANCE’S DEMURRER. League Should be Relied On. PARIS, February 15. The French Eoreign Minister, M. Bria.nd, replying to President Coolidge’»s( invitation, emphasises his appreciation of the lofty 7 aim of the American note on disarmament, the generous idealism, of. which, he says, agrees with the French views; but he states that the proposals made risk the compromising of the success of the. work com mehced at Geneva, which America is supporting. Whereas at the time of the Washington Conference, the League of Nations was not working thereon, it is now the duty of the League to secure a. general limitation of armaments, in which there will be many 7 successive stages .to be carried out. A special conference, in which only 7 certain powers participated, sought only a partial solution, and might prejudice a solu? tion of the coipplete problem, and also weaken the. League’s, authority throughout the world.* 5 Moreover, .all (he world navies had a right to be associated in tho limitation of light vessels. FRANCE’S FIRSFPRINCIPLES. air as wEetTas naval REDUCTION. LONDON, February 16. M. Briand, in his reply to President Coolidge, sates that the French Delegates at Geneva h-ave already 7 secured the. acceptance of the following general principles: — First: —That it would be impossible to limit nayios without considering navies atid’ air forces together. Secondly:—That tho limitation of navieA will only 7 be achieved by the attribution to each Power of a total tonnage for each division, according to requirements. The American proposals, he says, ignore these principles. France holds that the Preparatory Disarmament Cjonimittye, as . the result of recent debates, would enable a Disarmament Conference to have serious chances of success. Therefore, in view of his duty as a member of the League of Nations anh in view of the fact that he also is convinced that durable work could only be built up by 7 the Powers’ joint assent, he believes that the proposals can be efficaciously studied by the Preparatory Committee. GERMANY’S CLAIMS. For equality. ; Received February' 16 at 8 p.m.) BRUSSELS, February 15. M. Vanderveldo. (Belgian Foreign Minister), speaking in the Chamber, qdmitted that the maintenance of the Control Commission in Germany for a few months longer might be efficacious, for, contrary to the Locarno Agreements, it gave a guarantee which th.Allies had vainly been seeking since 1919. As far as the coming years were eone’erned, Germany was incapable of making a, decisive offensive cn 'fier Western Front. The victorious Entente broke the offensive weapon which Germany' possessed almost intact after the Armistice; but it was impossible to achieve what Napojeon had vainly attempted after Tilsit. Germany certainly’ intended to appeal to |the favourable Treaty clauses at the iDisarmament Conference, thus causing | a dilemma, in which the other Powers Iniust reduce their forces to correspond to Germany’s, or else Germany 7 would be able to claim the right to possess forces sufficiently large to defend her territory. -JAPAN’S REPLY. WILL ATTEND CONFERENCE. TOKIO, February 15. It is understood that Cabinet has decided to reply 7 to America, accepting the proposal for a. disarmament conference, subject to sanction.

Replying to interpellations in the Upper House, the Premier states that the decision to participate in the proposed conference did not warrant the postponement of the Naval BiH, as it was impossible to fortel.l the. result of the .conference.