The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1929 DISARMAMENT AND PARITY.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 December 1929, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1929 DISARMAMENT AND PARITY.

Ttje Five Powers Naval Conference which is to meet in London next month has a number of difficult and complicated problems to handle. Naturally, says the Auckland Star, we are accustomed to regard the question of disarmament mainly from the British point of view, and we include America in our outlook chiefly "because of the efforts already made to roach a .definite understanding on this subject between Britain and the United States. But the Anglo-Amer-ican naval difficulty is not, from the European standpoint, the only serious question that the Conference will discuss, as the controversy now in progress between France and Italy may remind us. A short time'ago Italy officially made an offer to Franco to arrange her plans for naval maintenance 'and development or the basis of parity. But M. Briand. though in a sense a pacifist and an internationalist, is far too patriotic to sacrifice his country’s interests, and he has very definitely rejected the Italian proposals. The French memorandum points out that it is nrnetienlly impossible for Italy and France to approach naval parity even to the same extent as Britain and the United States. For 'France's navy is now at least 50 per cent •stronger than Italy’s, and this superiority is fully justified by the difference hi their respective needs. France has" a great colonial empire and world-wide commerce, and if she were ro consent to reduce her navy to the level of Italy’s, she would be compelled to neglect some of her most important responsibilities, and while striving to do justice to them she could not maintain her strength on an equality with Italy’s in the Mediterranean, (yhere alone her naval, power would have political weight and value. These arguments appeal to ns with especial force because in their implications they completely justify Britain’s claim for special consideration in regard to naval strength as against America. It is difficult to believe that the French naval authorities had not Britain and the United States in view quite as much as France and Italy when they drafted the impressive schedules accompanying the memorandum. These figures show that, if area of territory, length of coastlines and communications and volume of external and seaborne trade be taken into account, the relative naval needs of the Powers would be represented by 160 for Britain. 42 for the United States, 30 for France and 40 for Italy. Thus Franco claims that her actual requirements justify a navy three tim°s as strong as Italy’s, and incidentally she lias proved that on the same basis Britain ought to have a navy at least twice as large as the navy of the United States.