DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 27 June 1927, Page 2

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Australian A N.Z. Cable Association.)

WASHINGTON, June 25. The refusal of Ambassador Gibson to agree to the British proposals or to a revision of the Washington Arms Treaty is supported by the State Department. There is no intention here to urge Gibson to aocept the proposals.. OBJECT. GENEVA, June 25. Admiral Jones, tho American expert, admitted that the ratio of fivefive three, which the United States is seeking to apply to the smaller vessels, is not- the ratio of those vessels at present in service. While Admiral Jones is not ready to accept the British figures for cruiser strength, as cabled on Monday, he admitted that, so far as comparatively new cruisers are concerned, the British Navy is now much stronger than the American Navy. The American Fleet, he said, at present included a considerable percentage of small out. of date cruisers, dating from the time of the SpanishAmeriean War. Apart front the Conference altogether, therefore, the United States was faced with the need of heavy replacement. NEW RATIO. GENEVA. Juno 25. Mr Gibson (Leader of the U.S.A. delegation) was questioned as to whether America is stating exactly what cruisers, destroyers and submarines she wanted and why. Ho replied: “We feel that the ratio that was reached at Washington was reached after consideration by all the five signatory Rowers, and that to state now our exact needs in smaller ships would he simply repeating the work done by the strategists at Washington.”

Mr Gibson further stated that, provided the rates of the live—fivethree was accepted, they would ;e willing to accept the lowest possible tonnage -.ucdeptaVle ‘to t Britain and

Japan. Admiral Jones told a questioner that America, was willing that the cruiser guns should be reduced to six inches and the guns of destroyers to five inches.

BRITISH CRITICISM. GENEVA, "June 25. Admiral Jones’ statement as t:> smaller vessels bears out the British experts’ conclusion that the nett result of the American proposals must be to increase the United States s cruiser strength as compared with the cruiser needs of Britain, though, according to the British experts, the cruiser needs of America obviously did not equal those of the British Empire, which had over one hundred thousand square miles of ocean to patiol. On American observer says:— “ America called this conference primarily for the purpose of describing as disarmament a heavy programme of building which must lie undertaken to replace our worn-out smaller types of warships.”

U.S.A. REFUSAL. GENEVA, June 25. To-day, the leader of the U.S.A. delegation, Mr Gibson, indicated that there is no chance of the United States accepting the British proposals to reduce the size and to extend the age of battleships. Mr Gibson stated that the actual existence of the two thirty-five thousand British battleships. Rodney and Hood, must always he taken into consideration in any discussion on the capital ships, seeing that Britain was determined to raise this question. "We do not object to tlic-ir discussion,” he said, “hut, inasmuch as America is opposed in principle to Britain’s proposals to reduce the capi tal ships, any discussion on that subject here must necessarily be highly academic.” For the present America seems determined to holt and bar the door against this battleship proposition, to which Britain attaches the greatest value.

Yesterday in Japanese circles it was hinted that the Americans were awaiting instructions from At ashington on the capital ships question. Mr Gibson’s announcement, however, suggests that these instructions have been received, and that there is no chance of America accepting the British plan, which would save the taxpayers of the three countries more than all the propositions dealing with the cruisers, destroyers and submarines put together. Mr Gibson even hinted that the technical developments between now and 1931 might even cause America then to propose an increase, instead of reducing the size of the battleships, which is hardly a pleasing prospect to hint at during a disarmament conference.

Mr Gibson recalled that Washington required twelve weeks to work out the details of its simple agreement. The procedure at Geneva was entirely different. Each country had brought forward proposals based on its own peculiar needs. It would not be surprising, therefore, if it took some time to reach common ground. He did not desire to he unreasonably optimistic, but all three Powers wanted to reduce armaments, and he was confident that Vots of patience and hard work would eventually produce valuable results. PRESIDENT COOLIDGE’S VIEWS. NEW YORK, June 26.

The “New York Times” message from Rapid City, South Dakota, says President Coolidge who is vacationing there is understood to bo dissatisfied with tlie British attitude at Geneva. He may send new instructions to Air Gibson It is reported the President does not wish to take the initiative at the present time and feels that Britain will be inclined by sentiment at home to fall in with the American proposals or at least modify her present attitude. Mr Coolidge said:— J feel the American proposals are in full accordance with forward world sentiment and Britain cannot long maintain her present position, which if persisted in, will make a world conference difficult. JAPAN AND U.S.A. WASHINGTON, June 25. The United States Secretary, Mr Kellogg, declared that lie has no information supporting the Press reports as to Japan’s possible intention to seek a treaty with the United States. The Japanese Ambassador called on Mr Kellogg, but lie gave no intimation of tliis. Neither has such an official intimation been received from Geneva.