The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1930. THE NAVAL TREATY.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 July 1930, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1930. THE NAVAL TREATY.

The President of the United States is still greatly perturbed in respect to the ratification of the Naval Treaty by the Senate. His appeals for favourable action are not being received cordially and there is just a possibility the United States will refuse once again to ratify an important document over which its accredited representatives collaborated. Seeing that the Naval Treaty has been reduced to a three Power Agreement rather than permit the negotiations to fail altogether, (the. cpmplate failure of the negotiations would not bo in the way of a national disaster. According to the British naval experts, Britain has committed itself very critically, and there is a- very strong line of public opinion that the break down of the treaty a.t this juncture would be a

happy issue. Actually America receives all it asked for in the way of parity under the trentv, but this concession now that it is available, does not please Uncle Sam. To gain parity, the United States must build, and this involves an. expenditure of many millions, and perhaps after all because of this liability the Senate is disposed to baulk. As regards the British naval outlook, it will be recalled that recently Earl Beatty and Admiral Jel-

lieoe caused something of a .sensation

in the House of Lords by speaking their minds about the Treaty. Earl Beatty told the House plainly that the Treaty has rendered Britain—the only nation to which sea-power means everything-—“impotent and in apable of maintaining effective control over, tire connecting links of her far-flung Empire.” He pointed out that while the United States were increasing their cruisers by 233,000 tons, and Japan was increasing hers by 40,000 tons, Britain had taken the “inexplicable? step of cutting down her cruisers from 70 <o 50.' He further showed that by 1933 France would simply outclass Britain in submarines, and he maintained that without the Singapore base “Britain would be helpless to protect her Empire and her trade in the Far East and India.” Earl Beatty’s iremarks were endorsed emphatically bv Admiral Jcllieoc, who declared that “the present position should cause the nation the greatest anxiety.” He reminded the House that, if Britain had not possessed over 100 cruisers at the outbreak of the war, “her losses would have been so great that she would have been starved into 1 submission.” Even now,, she may not keep up her cruisers to the 50 limit, witfiout retaining vesse’s 20 years old, while other Powers may use the 16 years’ limit. But on© of the most interesting points in the- Admiral’s speech was his reference to New .Zealand. He stated thate the New Zealand Government had asked him to represent -them at the Naval Conference, and after Lord Pass fie Id had objected to “two sets of export advisers,” Earl Jellicce’s views were submitted in writing to the Admiralty. Mr MacDonald was questioned about this in the House of Commons later, but contented himself with stating that.“there was never any question of the Government declining to receive a representative nominaled by New Zealand.” But he definitely refused to say that Karl Jellieoo’s statement was incorrect. Naturally the Treaty is being well defended at Home, despile the export criticism' along the lines of the insc urity of the Empire- under the conditions. 1 The London “Times” maintains that the termination of ■comomtitive building between Britain, the United States and Japan justify the acceptance of the terms of the pact! The saving to result from a naval holiday appears to he the chief factor in favour of the treaty. This is endorsed by Sir Archibald Hurd, who said the chief grounds for acceptance were the need for economy, the assurance of the Foreign Office that there is no danger of war in the near future, and “the plea that the sacrifice of naval principles is essential to retain and cement the goodwill of the United States.” But are these arguments convincing? As Karl Jellicoe said some time ago, “If there is no danger of war why maintain any fleet? If there is danger of war, why maintain a fleet that is not strong enough to fulfil its mission?” Admiral Oliver, who lifts had Idng ex*perienf|j of naval requirements, declares. “The mail who could protect our trade, routes now would be a genius,” and confesses that- he could not do it himself. It is possible that Lord Bridgemnn told “the truth and nothing but the truth,” when he said, not long ago, that Britain, by signing the treaty, had given away a good deal and got nothing in return because “our negotiators seemed to think that it was necessary to get some agreement, however bad.” The situation seems to savour of reaco at any price, but if the United States fails to ratify the treaty the position will be saved for Great Britain, and it is very doubtful if there will be any serious race with armaments for the time being, in view of the world situation.