NAVAL PARITY

Hokitika Guardian, 17 September 1929, Page 5

NAVAL PARITY

JAPAN’S BID.

FOR SECOND STRONGEST CRUISER FLEET. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON, Sept. 15.

The “Daily Telegraph’s’’ Naval correspondent minutely examines the bearing of the Anglo-American Naval discussions on> other Fleets, and notably that of Japan, which, lie remarks, “is of prime interest to Australia and New Zealand.”

“Though Japan is reported to wish the ratib to be five-five-three arid half for non' capital ships,” says the correspondent, “she would, under the existing ratio, need to scrap some cruisers, of which' she has seven thousand more'tons than America.’’

The ' correspondent states .that Japan’s twenty-two cruisers aggregate 212 thousand tons, and possess 104 eight inch guns, also 138 six or five and a-half.finch guns. This cruiser strength is easily second to Britain!’.l? cruiser strength/

FRANCE’S AIM

PARIS, Sept. 15.

The French press, which is keenly discussing the impending naval conference, asks:— “ls Britain working for ari Anglo-American entente, and Anglo-Saxon., federation ?” • The. Press -saysthat France is ; not content to-,,be on the same , footing as Italy in any . new; naval scale. v

AMERICAN DELEGATION.

FOR THE LONDON CONFERENCE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15

It is, expected' that the . United States delegation at the forthcoming Five Power Disarmament Conference will include Mr. Stimson (U.S. .Secretary) Mr Dawes (U.S. Ambassador at London), Mr Gibson, Admiral Jones, Mr Long, Commander Train, and the Under Secretary for State, Mr Cotton. if the latter can be spared.

NAVAL CONFERENCE. ’.' " ; " 1 " r

(Received this, uuy. at 9.25 a.m.) ' I '■ " LONDON, Sept. 16. \Jt' is officially announced that Australia and' New- Zealand., will’ be invited fsp be separately represented at the Fiye Powers Naval Conference, ' prothe middle of January, which is a replica of Washington. .

It is authoritatively stated that the outstanding, margin in Anglo-American naval negotiations consists of America’s desire .for 3 extra And Britain’s wish that America should reduce the, .aggregate- .tonnage by 10,000., 1 - • • /It is understood Mr MacDonald is sanguine ,1 to bridge both/ difficulties during the Washington visit.

FIVE-POWER MEETING.

.f;. 'WASHINGTON,' Sepfernber 13. , Mr Stinison said recent'developments might necessitate holdingJji'e proposed Five Power. Naval Conference in January instead of December'because of the necessity of a thorough preparation for the meeting.

AN OFFICIAL REPORT:

STATEMENT OF POSITION.

{British Official Wireless.)

(Received this dav. at 11.25. a.m.) ;i ■ RUGBY', September 16. The scope of the Naval Conference will,,be,much wider than has been generally supposed; " ' It is now settled that the conference should be adjourned. k The Washington Conference would not otherwise have met until 1931. Both America and Britain feel that naval. powers would probably like to have 'under,:,consideration the whole 'problem, including first, class battleships, -the limitation of which had been settled up: to that date. The Powers will therefore be invited to come to London to discuss the whole question <)f naval disarmament and may take a substantial step in this direction and ■then go to the League of Nations Preparatory Committee"' on Disarmament, to deal with the land and air department. .‘.'■'■■Mi.

Even if the step taken towards naval disarmament proved smallei*’ than tlnBritish Government would wish, a world agreement on building, although, not a single' ship were taken off the sea would be an immediate advantage. As to the’ position ; between Britain ' and the United States, the January Conference will give, an opportunity for irevising some parts of the which had been subject to conversations during recent months. It is emphasised that in any case the terms of such agreement must be subject to the Five Powers Conference being in concurrence with it. • ' / .Britain at present has 59 cruisers Ibuilt and building, and under the new proposals they will be scaled down to (50 by 1936, which is taken as the standard year.' ’ in 1935 the situation would be repealed and intervention years will give :an opportunity for peace experiment. Jn 1935 if it is found such an experiment is unjustified and that the hoped ■ for increase of the peace spirit'has hot materialised, and that the figures < 1929 do not give the necessary margin of safety, the demands could bfe put forward for increases in 1936. , If no change has meantime faken place, naval strength could be contin•ued on the 1929 basis. If, on the other hand, .it was found that such a figure was much too big, another reduction could be made.

The absence of naval rivalry between Britain and America lias contributed substantially to tne success of the conversations which have recently been in

progress. The British Board of Admiralty has never, either under the late administration or under the present Government, taken America into account in devising its programme. Britain has certain responsibilities to deal with and the Board of the Admiralty have always hcen bound to provide for certain possibilities. The situation that developed so rapidly in Palestine, for example. To meet these responsibilities a certain fleet standard had been ordered out, and the present British Government would in any event have reviewed the whole position to see how far it had been constructed to meet these respon-

sibilities and nothing else. No objection was raised to America’s parity. In addition to the parity, America wanted to reduce expenditure, and Britain also desired to reduce expenditure, but not below a point at which she could fulfil her responsibilities. The point is now reached for discussing how America and Britain could satisfy tile two requirements of parity and reduction. Jn reviewing the situation it was at the outset agreed that the effort at disarmament must have a political foundation. Work was started, therefore, with the Kellogg Pact as the basis of any agreement reached. A survey showed that there were broadly three classes of warships to be considered. Firstly, there were first class battleships, • limited by the' Washington Agreement in 1921.

Secondly, there were cruisers divided into 8-inch gun cruisers of roughly 10,000 tons and six-inch gun cruisers whose tonnage had recently become recognised at about 6500 tons. Thirdly, there were destroyers and submarines.

It became clear during negotiations that a settlement regarding destroyers must depend very largely upon what other persons build, but it was agreed that as between Britain and America, in destroyers there should be an eventual parity. As to submarines, it was found that America, like Britain, should welcome their elimination. The only difficulty throughout the conversations has been the cruisers. • The exploration of the problem was undertaken and tentative proposals were advanced by both sides. i The position now is that an exceedingly narrow margin remains open to which an agreement has not yet been reached. The margin is involved in two factors, firstly total cruiser tonnage, and, secondly, the use that can be made of the margin of about 24,000 or 30,000 tons of vessels. In view of the narrowness of this margin it is regarded as incredible there could be a break. Britain has stated her final requirements a£ fifty cruisers, of which fifteen carry 8-inch guns and thirty-five carry 6-inch gnns, with a/total tonnage of 339,000. The United States proposals are for twenty-one cruisers carrying 8-inch guns and / fifteen carrying 6-inch guns, making a total of 315,000 tons.

Britain would like America’s eightinch cruisers reduced to eighteen and her total tonnage to 300,000 tons. The margin of difference is, therefore, three 8-inch cruisers and the view held in authoritative British circles, is that agreement on that point does not depend finally on the Anglo-American negotiations.

WIRELESS INQUIRY.

(Received this dav at 1.5 p.m.) LONDON, Sept. 16

As to whether the Conference would deal with naval bases, including pore, was stated to be a question hitherto not mentioned or likely to be. It was a matter for discussion later.