The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1931. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 May 1931, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1931. NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Til hue can lie no question says tlio Dunedin Times, as to the simvritv and good faith with, which Great Britnin has addressed herself to the problem of disarmament in terms of the Treaty of London. Not satisfied with the indeterminate nature of the agreement reached at the Naval Comerenee, to which neither France noi Italy lia s subscribed, British diplomacy has for a long time boon engaged upon the difficult task of reconciling the conflicting views of France ana Italy. As a result an agreement was reached, which, subje.t to ratification by the two Continental countries, was regarded as fulfilling that hope of a termination of competitive naval building by the live great sea Powers with which the Naval Conference opened. A hitch lias occurred, however, with respect, of the French acceptance of the prineilph' of limitations, and this has found" expression in tlie questions that have been raised in Fiance; Mr A, Vi AUixaiuk'r, First Lord of the Admii-alty-;'in a -speech last week, ro= fetring to the attitude of France with regard (o the negotiations which )u» hud considenod complete, bins ompliusised the importance of nil nations contributing proportionately to the cause of disarmament. While laying stress on the fact that no efforts will he lacking on the part of Great Britain to foster the goodwill that is essential to the success of the disarmament proposals, he directed attention to the futility of a programme under which one nation would be called upon to make continual concessions in oruer to tempt others to fall into lino. Whatever hopes are entertained by the statesmen of the world for a condition of affairs in which the arbitrament of war will have no place, it is certain that it has not yet been attained. For that reason the policy of unilateral disarmament cannot be depressed beyond si certain point. Desirable though the limitation of naval strength is, there still remains a level below which it must bo dangerous for any country to go. Great Brit- | ain lias already demonstrated her willingness to do as much as any other nation in the interests of peace, ana the concessions she has made entitle her to a claim that no country has equalled her efforts in this dilection. In this she has been guided entirely by a desire to further the interests of peace. No treaty or agreement into which Great Britain has entered demands of her morte than that she should contribute as much as any other nation towards the general scheme of disarmament. Whether the sacrifices that have been made by her are consistent with the maintenance of national safety is a subject upon which there is a wide difference of opinion throughout the Empire. Certainly, there can he no doubt that any further reductions in l\fr naval strength that are not matched by corresponding reductions in the naval strength of other Powers would . constitute a grave menace to the security of herself and her dominions. For thi s reason it cannot be expected that additional concessions should be made merely for the purpose of enticing Fram-e into an agreement in nespoet of which that country has never been enthusiastic. No good purpose can he served'' by anv attempt to convince France or any other nation that her convention of the naval strength that is essential -> national security is erroneous. Such a course could result oulv in the undermining of that goodwill between the nation* in which may he said to consist, the first and chief hone of an ultimate solution of the problems 'of disarmament '.that are proving so difficult.