The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1930.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 January 1930, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1930.

naval parity. Aijieady there arc premonitory signs ol trouble brewing for the Five-Power Naviiil Conference which is to meet in London on the 21st inst. A short time ago the French Government received a Note from the Italian Government, the essence of which was a demand for naval parity, the Italian Government dashing of course to reach an agreement on this point, if possible, before the conference opens. The French Government’s reply, as published, reveals no desire on its part to embrace the Italian view. France do<!S not admit that Italy has any valid claim to naval parity with herself, because the naval needs of the two countries are not comparable. A very interesting feature of the French Note is wlmt is called a table of coefficients of defence for the five Powers concerned in the approaching discussions—Great Britain, the" United States, France Italy ,and Japan. The figures produced will no doubt he the subject of lively controversy, but they are not on that account the loss worthy of consideration. A French estimate of the naval requirements of the leading Powers is entitled to due respect. The calculation is based on considerations of area of territory, coastline, length of communications, trade and sea-borne commerce—a fair" l.v wide radius of examination. The upshot of the French reduction of i naval requirements to a common do- : nominator is to place them, in this | ratio—Great Britain iIOO, United I States 42, France 80, Japan 16, and [

Italy 10. Perhaps the only nation that is likey to appreciate the sagacity of thelEreiich estimate is Great Britain. The feelings of Signor 3Fas-

solini arc likely to l>c seriously outraged by its audacity; .Japan will Jie astonished to learn that the naval reqiiiremontsof France-are nearly twice as large as her own, and the United States will not thank the French Government for suggesting that there is no reason why the American fleet should bo even half as strong as that of Great Britain. On the basis of the French calculations, says an exchange, Great Britain would ho making an enormous concession to the United States were naval parity between tbe two countries to he established. Of course, the argument might be used that if Great Britain, despite her need of er nisei's. for the protection of her commerce, food supplies, and extended lines of (Umpire communication, is prepared to meet the United States in this matter, there is no reason why Franco should make so much trouble about the acceptance .of naval parity with Italy. But there is little sentiment about the French Government or French people in matters of national security. And whatever attacks may bo made upon tbe French table of coefficients of defence, it no doubt does present aspects of the naval position that cannot be ignored, in fact, the considerations that make real progress towards disarmament very difficult. The Americans claim naval parity with Groat Britain without ever having established their need of it. Groat Britain, however, lias never built '» competition with the American navy, and she recogr nises that the Americans can build as mighty a fleet as they like. The hope of cutting down the financial burden of naval armaments, and of furthering the cause of disarmament, is bringing the two Governments together in this matter, and desirably so. But the want of logic in the ciy for naval parity, regarded simply as equality in ships and guns, has been frequently pointed out, and it is even possible that upon this rock the Naval Conference may find itself in danger of splitting. There is no real parity of circumstances, between the United States and Great BnUain, nor is there any between France and Italy. The attempt to apply a yardstick to the navies of the Powers may well bo regarded with some misgivings. There is much to he said for the view expressed by Admiral Sir Herbert B icliniond—“Tbe decisions of tlio conference should be based on fundamental principles of policy and strategy. The nations which are most liable to injury from the sea are'entitled to furnish themselves with means of security higher than Powers whose sea. defence is less vital.” But logic apart, for the conference to at-tem-pt to reach agreement on those lilies would possibly -lie futile