NAVAL PARITY

Hokitika Guardian, 9 December 1929, Page 3

NAVAL PARITY

TUB FRENCH VIEW. m. imiANirs ALEMQ. United Press Association. —By Klectrn Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, Dec. 6. Al. Briand’s naval meinorandiini. handed to the Italian Ambassador, amounts to a- reply to Italy’s claim for naval parity with France. A!. Briand indicated that parity could not be taken as a. basis fw Fran co-Italian negotiations, which must he based on the defensive needs of the two countries. The French viewpoint is that the needs of the two countries are so dissimilar, that parity would place. France at a serious disadvantage, because she is obliged to protect world-wide interests, whereas the task of the Italian navy is virtually limited to the Mediterranean. France declines to take the AngloAmerican parity as an analogy because of the existing difference in favour of France, compared with Italy is fifty per cent all round. If it were possible France would accept parity in the Mediterranean with a margin for defence of her coasts elsewhere, also protection of colonies and communications, hut obviously Bah would object to France maintaining this reserve tonnage.

Frame therefore proposes to leave p.rity from the discussion in the early stages and proceed with a fud frank examination of the practical necessities.

The French Ministry of Marine has already estimated the French requirements and laid down figures at which she is aiming. These involve a considerable increase in the present strength of the French Navy. The question whereat it will he agreed the French should eventually he allowed to Imild to the same figures depends largely on the Loudon Conference, but it can be taken as certain that she will insist on Italy justifying her programme on the basis of defensive necessities.

The French Ministry has prepared a so-called “Table of co-efficients of defence” for the Five Powers, under .various headings, taking Italy as ten in all cases.

The tables are as follow: — Area of torritorv.A-Bntish Empire log. United States 40, Japan 3, France 47.

Coast lines.—British Empire Ob, United States 46, Japan JO, France 23.

, Length of communications. —British, Empire 112, United States 32, Janan TO, France 66.

The Ministry has also calculated similar figures based on commerce. Firstly, external 'trade.—British Empire 106, United States 53, Japan 13, France 27.

Secondly, seaborne traffic. —British Empire 178. United States 76, Japan 23, France 36.

Tf all the figures are taken togetlior the result is that tire British Empire needs an amount of a hundred, United States forty-two, France thirty, .Japan sixteen, Italy ten. Thus France estimates her naval necessities far ahead of Japan’s and not greatly below America’s tliouyl far b'low the Empire’s, and threefold 'ltaly’s.

li The calculations do not take into account political realities, but show why, on technical grounds, France iunlikely to admit Italy’s claim for parity with France,” concludes the memorandum.