NAVAL STRENGTH

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1933, Page 5

NAVAL STRENGTH

GENEVA MEETING

DIVERGENT VIEWS EXPRESSED (Per British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, May 25. At the General D'sar nutment Commission at Geneva divergent views were expressed by the delegate,? when naval larmaments were considered. Signor .-Mcesigii (Italy) advocated qualitative disarmament and reduction in the size of capita] ships and cruisers to 25,000 and eight thousand tons respectively. The London lieaty should be revised. There should be a treaty for all. Scnor Madariaga (Spain) advocated the abolition of battleships above ten thousand tons. He sarcastically mentioned that the five leading Powers possessed 4,276,000 tons of warships, compared with 940,000 for the rest of the world.

The British delegate, Capt-ain Eden, urged the rejection of the plan proposed. He said it was not of such nature ag would assist the work. Britain, he said, had not -built up her to. nage allow© 1 by the London naval treaty. As the result of the Washington treaty, million tons of ships -had been destroyed and the way was prepared for the 'further reductions made'at London, whole capital ships wore ifrrther reduced and gun calibre limited, and where five cvui.ei'H which Britain intended to build, had been stopped, Britain had reduced her totn] tonnage by a hundred thousand ,a.nd asked other countries to act similarly. He considered that the next naval conference, due in 1935, should consist not only of big riaval powers, but ail Powers interested in naval matters. He urged universal concurrence in the principle adopted by the Five Naval Powers that the status quo be maintained until the next conference land that negotiations continue with a view to effecting further important reductions. •M. Sato (Japaoi) proposedthat a> new naval agreement should replace the Washington and London naval treaties, 'and be included in the future Disarmament Convention.

Mr Dav.is '(United States) expressed full approval of Captain Eden’s . remarks .and pointed out that the two naval treaties had halted the naval armament race. He expressed -a > de-. sire that the London treaty’s framework should be completed by tne signatures of France and Italy. He urged the delegates to accept the article, in the British plan by which the 'Signatories to the naval treaties would remain bound by the reductions they imposed. He emphasised that if the two existing, treaties were fully applied, it would, entail .quantitative . increases which were not in conformity with' the conference’s aim.

DEFINITION OF AGGRESSOR. • ADOPTED BY COMMITTEE. LONDON, May 25. The British- United cor,respondent at Geneva says: “After weeks of labour, the security committee of the Disarm'me,nt Conference has defined the meaning of ‘aggressor.’ The definition is as follows :

“An 'aggressor 'is . a state which, firstly, declares war on another State; secondly, undertakes armed invasion wi'tli or without, a declaration of war into* .another’s territory; thirdly, makes a land, naval or air attack on vessels or aircraft ; fourthly, conducts a naval blockade ; fifthly, supports armed binds invading another State.”

The- draft adds: “An -aggressor cannot be justified on grounds of the internal condition or the international ■conduct of lanotner -State. ’ The draft proposed the establishment of ,a ‘Commission to investigate aggression on the scene of the tionb e, with power to decide by a majority vote.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEBATE. RUGBY, May 25. Sir John Simon ; on a eecnod attempt reached’ London by air. He will attend a Cabinet meeting to-morrow morning, and take part in the foieign n ff air,s. debate in the Commons during the evening. He expects to return to Geneva in a few days, and will probably see M. Daladier route. The “Daily Telegraph’s” Genevacorrespondent says : ‘‘Sir John Simon s draft greatly extends the scope of the security proposal* without increasing the obligations, of Great Britain in ft military sense. Consequently, . this draft cannot be described as -a reiteration of the Geneva Protocol of nine years ago. The Geneva Protocol definitely committed Britain to decisive action as regards an -international force. Sir J. Simon’* text does not.”