Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1929 THE QUESTION OF NAVAL PARITY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 26 July 1929, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1929 THE QUESTION OF NAVAL PARITY

WITH the advent, of the new President of the United States and or the new Premier of Great Britain a new atmosphere has been created in the relationships of the two Governments. We showed yesterday, in what manner the Quaker President proposes to deal with the excessive expenditure voted by Congress in j connection with the military forces of ll, e United States. And, following nn- ! mediately upon his pronouncement mi that matter, ho has shown that in natal 'matters lie proposes to follow, in * (> M | junction with the British Government, a • policy of limitation of armaments, cuin- ; mens urate of course with tho safety of • the two great nations' interests upon j the seas. “The principle of parity • which,” he says, “we have now adopted 'and its consummation means that Brii lain and the United States henceforward ' ;Vre ret to compete but to co-operate as friends in the reduction of it.” Ibis, of !course, is in direct contravention of the ' aspirations of the Big Navy party, 'which, in Congress and out of it, sought j to achieve not. parity but superiority in naval armaments, and so wrecked till

negotiations for reduction of such armaments, at. tin; abortive conference at Geneva. The President’s prerogatives are great and, though Congress may vole immense sums for carrying out the extravagant naval building programme on which tlic last President set his seal, the now President can, and evidently will, veto that expenditure, upon his coming—with the help of his new Ambassador to Great Britain—fm u satisfactory understanding with the British Premier as to what degree of naval reduction (lie two nations cap adopt without danger to the maintenance of peace upon, the seas.

On his part. Mr Ramsay MacDonald savs, ''Already the whole hold of those difficulties with the United States has been surveyed, and the two Governments have made a fresh start in their solution. Wo are agreed upon the principle of parity. Wo are agreed, without in any way departing from the condition of parity, that a measure of elasticity can be allowed so as to meet the peaco requirements of the nations. We have arranged that we shall not allow technical points to override great public issues, resulting in our being able to come to a, settlement.'’

The nature of that settlement is not divulged perhaps because its details have not been fixed, perhaps because they cannot be fixed before the lesser naval Powers have been consulted as to their willingness to coino into lino on the basis of the ratio 5-5-3, laid down at the Washington Conference in reference to capital ships, and now presumably to be extended to smaller craft. After consulting with the British Admiralty, Mr MacDonald has evidently come to a conclusion as to what proposals lie could make, to President Hoover, and apparently the Minister is satisfied that, the understanding, which has been reached, does not in any way menace tbo efficiency of the U.S. Navy to perform its part in protecting America’s maritimo interests. Whatever the understanding between the two great nations’ leaders may lie, so far as the composition of tho British Navy is concerned the last word must he spoken by the British people through their representatives in Parliament. This should lie a sufficient check to Mr MacDonald’s idealism running away with him to such an extent as to weaken the British Navy to the point of rendering it inefficient to carry out its world-wide task. For his party in the Commons does no* command an absoluto majority; he is dependent upon the goodwill of the Liberals for his retention of power; he cannot afford to sacrifice the Empire’s naval protection to tho pacifism of the President, if ho wishes to continue in power for any length of time.

Therefore the details of the arrangements which the Premier and the President may be agreed upon will bo awaited with great interest throughout the Empire. We believe an amicable agreement on naval matters between Great Britain and the United States can bo permanent, only if both sides consistently “play the game.” TJnfortunately President Coolidge's monstrous programme for building enormous numbers cf the largest cruiser's completely destroyed the Empire’s confidence in his bona tides. It is a happy tiling that the new President has paved the. way for the restoration of that good feeling which should exist between tho Englishspeaking nations, in relation to naval affairs. Subject to his proposals being as satisfactory as they appear to be, there is r:o reason why the best of good relations should not be established on naval matters. But for them to he permanent it would he necessary, when President Hoover's regime comes to an end through effluxion of time, that there should bo no repetition of such reprehensible tactics as were used by the last President in order to seek to attain predominance, while professedly upholding the principle of naval parity between the United States and Great Britain.