NAVAL CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1927, Page 2

NAVAL CONFERENCE

Australia & N.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, July 0. The Australian Press Association’s correspondent at Geneva saxs. ibt Naval Conference lias now reached a most critical stage. In the best-in-formed circles, the opinion is that its fate lies in the hands of President (’oolidge and the American Party lead-

“For the present, the Naval Experts .’ommittoe is not meeting, hut the leads of the three Delegations met tolav. and they are continuing to-tnor-(i-,v a discussion in general principles.” Tbe supreme question is that of the

•miser strengths. Japan is content to remain non-committally in the hackground. Til the main, however, Japan stands nearer to the British viewpoint regarding cruisers. Japan, like Britain needs a large number of small cruisers; whereas the United States thesis, when translated, means a smaller number of cruisers almost entirely of the Washington Naval Conference. standard size, like the “Australia." and the “Canberra,’’ which cost over two million pounds each.

The view in the British circles is that President Coulidge is placed on the horns of a dilemma, it being considered that a breakdown of the conference on the cruiser issue will damage American prestige in Europe enormously, as being a failure of the first disarmament effort in Europe in which the United States has participated. At the same time, to bring ill# United States to a complete cruiser parity with Britain, whenever this matter is faced, will entail a building programme costing over thirty millions sterling, which the world will not legat'd as being disarmament. America’s present cruiser strength is ten seven-thousand-ton cruisers in commission, two ten-thoiisand-toiiners building and six ten-tiiou-sand-touners authorised. Their total tonnage would lie 150,000 tons. It is estimated that Britain’s seventy-one cruisers, either built or building and protected, total •100.000 tons. America’s original proposal was that the British and American respective totals in cruiser tonnage should bo from 25!) to 39!) thousand. It is understood that the Americans last night offered to accept four hundred thousand tons as an AngloAmerican maximum. It is learned definitely to-day from a British plenipotentiary that this is unlikely to he accepted. He said : “We lmd a cruiser strength before the war of 121 ships. Now Britain has only 71 cruisers built, building and projected. This is llie minimum number required for the safety of the Empire. Neither Britain nor the Dominions, especially Australia and New Zealand, will accept any reduction in this number, though they are willing to accept reductions in the size and gunpower of all cl them. We must have the large number of small cruisers to police the seven seas. America seems to want a whole class of cruisers of at least most powerful toil thousand tonne],s. which will increase both Ihe aggressive power and the costs of navies. The next- move rests with President Goolidge. Me have accepted the principle of p-arity. America must tell the world exactly why she needs a largo fleet of the most powerful cruisers alloat.’’

THE BRITISH ARGUMENT. GENEVA, July 7

Dominion delegates here are amazed at Admiral Jones’ declaration that the Fnited States coastal and overseas shipping trade is half as great again in tonnage as the British Empire’s. They point out that small cruisers arc needed to protect the mercantile marine of the Empire. On the 31st. June the British Empire had 9825 ships, aggregating twenty-one ami three-quarter million tons, compared with the United States’ .3213 ships, aggregating eleven and alialf million tons.

Thu British Empire's population is -149 millions, and the United States’ population is 117 millions. The Empire's coastline totals 72 thousand miles and that of the United Slates 50 thousand miles.

AMERICAN VIEW. NEW YORK, July G. The New York Times’ Washington correspondent- states; ”lt is indicated here that the United States will not agree to a cruiser limitation in excess of four hundred thousand tons. The discussions at Geneva on cruisers are considered here as being of a preliminary nature. The question is first being considered hv the technical representatives. before being passed on to the chief delegates for diplomatic treatment. Tito American oflu-ia.s here have expressed a doubt: as to the report that the Amoiiean delegation lias actually piop ;sed a maximum tonnage of four .hundred thousand for cruisers, or has done more than indicate informally that, while the United States stood oil her original proposal for a cruiser limitation Irom 250 to three hundred thousand tons, if it should consent to larger figures it would not he able to go beyond a maximum of four hundred thousand tons. The American officials still consider that a maximum of four hundred thousand tons for cruisers is beyond the needs of any Power.