The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1931. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1931, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1931. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Tut; news of the naval pact between Italy and France, accepted at its face value, gave much satisfaction and hope for the future for a material measure of disarmament. But latest cable news on the matter rather clouds the impressions, and it would appear the conditions are not clarified as .satisfactorily as was at first supposed. If now turns out that t.he difficult problem of replacing obsolete ships was never definitely discussed, and iio igreement has been readied about- it. Franco now claims that “new ships begun after 10.31 and not completed by 1936” are excluded from the treaty. She therefore insists On building to the extent of 60,030 tons in 1934-30, hut holds that these vessels limy he completed after 1936 to replace obsolete warships, The Italians say that the point was not raised at the Conference, and though thy French represent their demand as “a voluntary sacrifice of half the tonnage France feels that she needs for replacement,” Italy is by no means disposed to agree. What will be the upshot of this controversy it is hard to conjecture in the mind of a northern critic. But it is quite certain that France and Italy, which are not bound by the limitations embodied in the London Naval Treaty, are preparing to augment their stocks of cruisers, destroyers and submarines on a scale unprecedented since the Great War; while Britain is placidly going on with her self-imposed duty of “scrapping,” according to schedule, and Admiral Polly is constrained to make a pathetic appeal to the Admiralty to spare the Tiger, a magnificent vessel of 29.000 tons, the last survivor of the old coal-burning warships, with its guns still in perfect order and described by its admirers as “still the most allround efficient ship ever built.” No doubt all these naval reductions stand for economy, and they certainly have some effect in promoting thy worldwide antipathy for war. But it is to be questioned whether Britain, inspired bv a laudable desire to honour her pledges, lias Hot, in the matter of naval disarmament, already gone too fast, if not too far. Tt must never be forgotten that Britain and its people depend entirely on the sea for their existence. A country which imports GO per cent of its meat, nearly 80 per cent of Its wheat. 90 per cent of its sugar, 95 per cent of its wool, and all its rubber, cannot afford to shut its eyes to the necessity for protecting its sea borne trade in any international cmeivency that may arise. The T.ondon Naval Treaty allows Britain only 50 cruisers, and of these 25 must, re-»->!iin attached to the British Fleet. This leaves 25 cruisers to patrol 80.0“ri miles of trade routes all over the world — ;i n ohvionslv imnossibP task. AA hen the Great War began Britain bad IB* cruisers available, but this force proved so inadequate to protect the Empire’s trade that the Germans were able to sink 7.000.009 tons of our shipping. Manifestly, if no wars are ever to hanpon again, we need not worrv about naval defence. But is even, the mo*t incurable optimistic of all pacifists nreoared to assert that war is from this time onward not onlv “unthinkable.” but impossible? And bow mnnv neonle, nncifists or not, are prepared to accept his guarantee?