FRANCE'S FEARS.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 December 1921, Page 3

FRANCE'S FEARS.

ADROIT REPLY BY MR BALFOUR

AMERICA PROPOSER FI RTHER ' *Keduction in tonnage.

(From the Special Representative of u 'c Australian Picss Association.)

Washington, Dec, 21. Official—At the meeting of the joint Naval Committee to-da.V, M. Sanaut continued the French arguments. He emphasised the fact that the apprehensions of France wore directed toil aids Powers not represented at tlie Conference. The views expressed by his delegation were not only those of France, but were shared by others. Should the right to build submarines Ite denied to the smaller nations, eitliei bv force or moral constraint, they would have no choice when they saw other nations maintaining eostlv fleets, if even moral constraint were used in relation to such nations, antagonisms would immediately be aroused in France Though the Conference was unable to come to a decision regarding .submarines

they had agreed to a reduction of offensive naval armaments. He thought the questions of the means of defence might Ik> left to the consideration of the" countries themselves. He would suggest a general conference, m which all countries should be represented who were interested in submarines, and really effective decisions might then lx> reached. Mr Balfour pointed out that. At. Riband's declaration that Franco’s fears came from the land side had caused the abandonment of all idea of discussing land disarmament at this Conference. France, having ended that chance proceeded to develop a sea policy embracing a vast submarine licet. If' the danger from these two positions were as great as indicated. it must mean that Germany had revived.

not only her army, but her navy also, l.otli in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. Franco could not deal with an attacking submarine navy with '> p >' submarine lleot, however large it might be. Britain alone could supply the seafaring population with which submarines could be controlled. How was that consistent with the building of a huge submarine fleet? Mr Balfour urced finally that, even if Conference unanimously decided to condemn the submarine ns a weapon inconsistent with civilisation, it would have a great moral effect even on nations not represented theio. M. Snm'.L reiterated that France must have submarines to protect her transports and lines of communication in case of war. She was not actuated |,y ail aspiration to become a great maritime Power since she had already consented to a reduction in capital ships. She did not want submarines to attack her neighbours. FELLING IN AMERICA. Air C F. Hughes said he thought the committee had come to a point where it must he concluded that it was impossible to roach an agreement. He expressed his deep sense of obligation for the spirit of which the British proposition gave evidence, and which had been maintained against appardit- ... i iwlds. If the arguments

of Lord Leo and Mr Balfour could be answered, Mr Hughes thought that the answer was vet to collie. He was quite aware that in the United States there was a growing sentiment against the submarine, due to abhorrence of the uses to which it had been put. There was a feelii.g that the submarine should he outlawed, and this feeling would be powerf ullly reinforced by what had been said at the Conference: hut considering tlm differences of opinion expressed it was impossible to expect a result favourable to the abolition of the. submarine. If at any time it was found feasible to take the matter of abolition up, the United States would give it most serious attention. ~ Mr Hughes said lie hoped that what 'had been said would lx- provocative of thought throughout the world. He hoped the Five Powers would agree to denunciation of illegal methods of submarines warfare in terms clearly understandable, and bind themselves to assure the ’application of the principles of international law in connexion with submarine warfare. The committee

should now consider the restriction of submarine tonnage. He believed those favouring the submarine arm should frankly tell the Conference wliat were their minimum requirements, and how far they were prepared to accept reductions and restrictions. Precise proposals would later he brought forward by the United Stales. Mr Hughes asked for the opinions of delegates on the subject of limitation of submarines. A BRITISH RESOLUTION. ; At J[r Balfour’s reouest, the committee placed on reroul the following , resolution: “The British Empire delegation de- • sires formally to placo on record its X

opinion that the use of submarines, while of small value for defensive purposes, loads inevitably to acts which arc inconsistent with tho laws of war and the dictates of humanity and the delegation desires that united action shall he taken by' all nations to forbid their maintenance, construction or employment. ’ PROPOSED REDUCTION IN TONNAGE.

Air Hughes said the American delegation were entirely willing to accept ! instead of tlie 90,000 tons proposed as j the maximum limit, 60,000 tuns, thus I scrapping 35,000 toils, of existing, s.ubI marine tonnage, on tlio basis that Bi ij tain would also accept 60,000 tons, and ! scrap 22,46-1 tons. Then, in a desire to I make whatever accommodation was possible to meet the views of the otlier I delegations, Air Hughes suggested that | if the United Staes and Britain re--1 dtieed tlieir submarine fleets as .indm rated, France, Italy and Japan should retain the tonnage they now had, in accordance with the figures given the other day. BRITAIN AND ITALY AGREEABLE. As soon ns the afternoon session ' opened. Air Balfour announced that I Britain accepted the American piopos.nl. i Signor Schanzer, after re-stating Italy’s position, thought that, in view of Italy’s special maritime position, she could claim a greater proportion of light naval craft and submarine tonnage than was the case'with capital ships. Italy's present submarine fleet of about 21,000 tons, was absolutely insufficient. Tt was found so during the war, and since the Armistice they had scrapped thirty submarines. But, although her expert considered a quota of 31,500 tons in submarines insufficient, Italy was ready to accept this figure under conditions of parity with France, about which they had precise | and categorical instructions from their Government. attitude OF japan. Air Haniharn said the Japanese were profoundly impressed by tlie powerful British arguments, hut were unable to convince themselves that submarines i wc-e not ail effective weapon of defence. Japan at the time of accepting the capital ship ratio, was prepared to accept- the same proposition for submarines which was given at 54.000 tuns, and which Japan considered tho minimum amount- of tonnage adequate. Japan could not accept the new proposals giving her 31,452 tons. She was I constrained to insist upon the liist j figure. Her demand was actuated soleI ly by considerations of defence. I Al. Sarraut stated that in view of i the considerable reduction proposed to . 31.491 tons .the French delegation , could not do otherwise than refer the latter figure to their Government, and await instructions.

All* Balfour pointed out that all the nations had different systems of measurement. It was eminently desirah! - to adopt u common system and avoid international misunderstandings. At tho chairman's suggestion, a sub-com-mittee of two naval experts from each delegation was appointed to determine a standard tonnage measurement. The meeting then adjourned. Regarding the restriction of submarines. some commentators consider that the projected five Power naval treaty (if applied only to the scrapping of capital ships, maintaining the agreed ratio, observing the naval holiday. and providing for a conditional limitation of auxiliary combatant ciaft would lie more advantageous than a definite agreement regarding submarines. Tt would firstly open the door to Britrain’s advocacy of abolition of the submarine, which would gather weight with all nations; secondly, the prospect of tlie future abolition of submarines might deter the nations now insisting on subknarinc navies from building more than they own at present ; thirdly. if Loo ations were given a tree hand in the matter, it- is unlikely they would build lievond their financial ability. instead of feeling constrained to build up to the limit specified. STAY YORK. December 24.

The Paris correspondent of the "Now York Times” discounts the possibility of Al. Briaud acceding to Air Hughes's proposal that Fiance should reduce her demand for 00.0(10 tons of submarines Al. Brinml tu-ilay spent the major part of his time in framing instructions to the French delegation at Washington mid in conferring with members of the Cabinet on the matter.

Tlu> newspapers express surprise lit All- Hughes's attitude, declaring he is “playing the British game.” This is suggested by tile proposed I* ive 1 ouei Treaty concerning the safeguarding uf of Atlantic and Alediterranean waters.