LIMITING NAVIES

Hokitika Guardian, 7 April 1927, Page 2

LIMITING NAVIES

| Australian Ji N.Z. (.'able Association.J GENEVA. April (>. The complexity and dillieiilties ol the disarmament problem was revealed »|icn the Preparatory Commission began the discussion of naval armaments. Lord Cecil opened the debate. He route-led the French viewpoint-, as expressed in their draft plant, that li armies are numerically limited, so must the naval personnel he numerically limited, lie said that the British Government’s view was that the proper way to limit the strength of a fleet was to limit the number, size and power of the ship-. This Britain was prepared to do dra-tieally. and very completely. but .-he -aw no necessity for limiting.the number of naval effectives. which, he said, would occur automtuieally with a decrease of tonnage. The French proposal would complicate the convention, and would render its ratification less likely.

lie added that navies could not he made more formidable hy increasing the man power behind their actual needs. Lord Cecil finally sprang a surprise by saying that he was not propart d to discus the point any further, as lie bad telegraphed to his Government for fresh instructions.

M. Boncour, the French delegate, rather .-areasticallv remarked that this wa- the si end tier* that ibis discus-

sion lied been suspended owing to Lord Cecil's necessity for gel ting instructions. M. Bom our proceeded to argue that it," naval, military and aerial strength, together with the coast detour-:; and the expeditionary forces, v.-ero all inevitably hound up in armaments. and ii any single category were ignored, then a wholesale deception would he possible, hy camouflaging the nature of certain forces.

U. Boncour recalled the part played in war time to those -ailors who were mil merely employed a- crews, hut as landing parties. TJu> American and Japanese delegates supported Lord Cecil's viewpoint. The German and Swedish delegates approved of At. Rom-nur's viewpoint. Pending receipt of his instructions r* yarding naval effectives. Lord Cecil proceeded to discus.- ilte limitation of material. He went on io emphasise that th" whole i \i f ihe British Empire ‘depended on the security of its i ouimuiiica i inns. A cessation of its -en -borne iiniiiiieivi won id mean Britain's siaivalion. Therefore the question was of vital importance io the British, whore pro .rumnie. he said, envisaged an age emeu! which would: 'll Forestall naval eompelition ; (2) see..re the fullest publicity, so that every nation would be aware of the naval strength its neighbours; (3) ana would .strengthen the psychology of security hy eliminating “ the surprise element.”

Lord Cecil contended that the limitation ol the number of ships was more important than limitation of the ships’ tonnage. He said Numbers were the essential element in the strength of a fleet.

The French proposal is the limitation of the total gross tonnage of the fleets. Lord Cecil said that Rritain was convinced that the only effective measure was fixing the number of ships In each category. Fnless such number was known, competition was inevitable and surprises were possible. .Mr Sato (.Japan) favoured limitation bv categories. He opposed the fixing of the size of the ship in each

category. .M. Honeour said that France favoured the limitation of fleets by the gross tonnage, because she wished to retain the right of the disposal of the smaller classes of ships, according to her special needs. The Swedish representative suggested, firstly, the limitation of the total tonnage by all the nations; secondly, the categorical limitation of the tonnage by the Great Powers ; thirdly, the. advance publication of all the naval programmes.

This proposal appeared to evoke a spirit of compromise, and the Commission adjourned, on M. lloncour’s promise to submit a new proposal.