NAVAL PACT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 October 1928, Page 6

NAVAL PACT

REPLY TO CRITICS

“FLIMSY ACCUSATIONS.”

BRITISH POLICY \DEFENDED

(British Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, October 26

Criticisms of the Anglo-French naval compromise proposals were replied t<4 by Lord Gnsliendun Acting-Foreign Secretary, in. a speech at Blackpool last night. He charaeteristed the line taken by critics as foolishly inept, both m regard to the method whereby the efforts were made to overcome. the deadlock on the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, and the alleged secrecy with which negotiations were undertaken. Jif an agreement was to be reached, he said there was one way of setting about it, namely, that of endeavouring by friendly conversations to advocate a compromise between the opposing English and French views, which constituted in the way of naval limitations.

“These negotiations.” be said, “were successful‘ in - arranging a compromise, but did not cover other naval Powers, without whose concurrence the compromise would- be useless as a step to a general agreement'at Geneva. Accordingly, we at once informed the American, Italian, and Japanese Governments and ' asked for their views. Although the announcement that the agreement had been reached was made without delay, it is true that we did not immediately publish cqrrespondeuce between the French Government and ourselves, : in which was conveyed tlie actual terms of compromise. This was because international courtesy required that we should wait until \\e had. received the' replies we had asked for. That is the solo ground on which we were accused of secrecy diplomacy and a flimsier accusation was never made' There was no concealment from beginning to end.” FRIENDLY RELATIONS. It was the aim of Brisith policy to* be on equally good terms with all countries, and friendly relations with the nearest neighbour remained the essential factor in British policy. • He confessed that the outlook for international disarmament was not at present promising. Britain would nut lelax her efforts', hut it was hot easy to see what she could do, if whenever she came to an agreement with any power on this question, she was to be denounced as a furtive corispiratoi and a hopeless blunderer for not having achieved more. . ... Britain proposed a total limitation of submarines, but all they could get was a limitation off the larger submarines, and, as they belieyed that half a loaf was bettpr than h.o bread, they accepted it. They were anxious to limit military reserves,,ku.f they were in a small minority at the League of Nations Committee on that point. They could, by sticking "-put for thenown ‘opinions have prevented anything at all being done. , It was not the policy of the Government to obstruct disarmament, because thev could not get their way in everything. When they could not get all they ,wanted they took what they could get! That was the full basis of thenaction in the Anglo-French compromise.