The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1927. THE NAVAL DISAGREEMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1927, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1927. THE NAVAL DISAGREEMENT.

The probable naval agreement has diverged to a probable naval disagreement. Great Britain was careful to give full notice of her naval necessities, hut from the outset they were not understood. Tho carefully-worded defence. of Britain’s ease, and the exposition of Britain’s claims, contained in tho report of the experts for Britain were obviously necessary, for it has been evident for some time past that the refusal of the American delegates to accept Britain’s proposals lias b:en largely owing to their failure to understand or appreciate Britain’s point of view. It was hardly necessary 1 1 convince the British Parliament or tli? British nation that Britain needs a larger number of light cruisers to protect her ten million tons of shipping along the 89,030 miles of her main highways. But apparently the Americans have not yet grasped this essential feature of the problem. The editor of the “Observer’’ the other day complained that the American representatives at Geneva “are not equipped with a knowledge even of the elementary conditions of Britain’s existence,” and no one who has followed the debates at Geneva or considered seriously the arguments by which the Americans have attempted to support

their case is likely to dissent ii'oni Mr Garvin’s verdict. To the Americans the important question seems to he whether Britain or Japan or any other Power shall he permitted, under any circumstances or for any purposes, to passes* a navy stronger in any single type of vessel or form of equipment than the. American licet. The fact that Britain and Japan, as insular empires, have to provide for needs and requirements that the Americans are not called upon to face makes no difference to thorn. Not only do the Americans appear to ignore the principal factors in the problem, hut they seem to have no desire to consider tho

question at issue from any standpoint hut their own. I low sii-.h d i uieiil I ies can In- overcome has long exercised the minds of those who regard a cordial utideisl.anding 'between Britain and America as essential to the world’s

pear:- and safety, li would appear that the United Slates authorities are very stubborn in this matter. In the first place at the outset of the Conference, the Americans declined decisively to reconsider any of the questions which were supposed to he settled at the Washington Conference. As a logical consequence they refuse absolutely t i discuss the size of capital ships, which Britain wishes to see reduced. Further, they have already intimated that the American Govern-

nient will on no account agree to any reduction or readjustment of building programmes which will leave (he United States with a smaller force i.’f cruisers am! minor vessels than Britain. As the Americans have thus demanded unconditional acceptance of their own plans and programmes, and emphatically refused to discuss the principal proposals put forward by Britain, there does not serin t > he much left for the Conference to do except to register America’s decrees without further tielav. If this is the wav in which conferences on international affairs are to he conducted, they are 'far more likely to obstruct the realisation of world peace than to promote it. Even worse than the dogmatic and high-handed fashion in which the Americans have stated their own views is the offensive and provocative tone of their references to Britain and her programme. From Washington we learn that “the l nitrd States will accept nothing less than a parity with Britain in every class of naval vessel.” A later cable from America conveys the portentous news that President Coolidge is “dissatisfied” with Britain for daring to

oppose America’s sovereign will. An even more illuminating comment on the situation was supplied hv the New York “World,” which expressed the pious hope that “Britain’s descent

from supremacy t:> parity’’ may bo effected !:v peaceful moans ! This sort of thing is, from the standpoint rt liritain’s dignity amf sclf-rospoot. almost intolorablo. But. in regard to tile world’s future prospects of peace and safety it is equally deplorable. What is to be gained by arranging conferences to discuss world affairs if one Power arrogates to itself the right to dictate terms to all the others? As to the proposals put forward by the Americans, it is easy to show that they arc unreasonable and unjust. A reduction in the tonnage of capital ships as suggested by Britain would lighten the burden of taxation for all the naval Powers at once. Yet the -Americans not only refuse, but insinuate that they may wish to build larger battleship., later on ! As to the “parity’’ now claimed with Britain in cruisers. 1 no amount of sophistry could justify this. For America has few oversea possessions, and no sea-borne trade comparable to Britain's, and therefore she has not the same need of light swift warships to patrol the ocean liigji"ays. But the Americans are apparently not concerned with reason or justice. They are content to reiterate their determination to have their own way regardless of everybody else, with the natural result that the Conference is likely to he completely wrecked. The news to-day will probably determine the issue at stake, but unless there are last minute reflections, the end appears obvious. Even though Hr Baldwin and Mr Coolidge are so close together tile latter is apparently not making any special effort to meet the former and go down into history for attempting a final personal effort to reach a solution acceptable to all concerned.