Secrecy and Suspicion

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 473, 1 October 1928, Page 9

Secrecy and Suspicion

HEARST ON NAVY PLANS Submarines and Sentiment (Lnited P.A.—By Telegraph — Copyright) (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) (United Service) Eeed. 12.4 p.m. LONDON, Sunday. A t>L the secrecy about the Anglo-French naval compromise i ar «>used the suspicious of the United States, which always has been averse from secret diplomacy, the elimination of which was one of the reasons why America entered the war,” declared William Randolph Hearst, the American newspaper magnate, before his departure for America.

It was the Hearst Press which first revealed to the world the terms of tlie mysterious naval agreement between Britain and France. “It is perfectly natural,” he continued, “for the United States to expect that (a compact including her should consider her interests, but the disposition of the United States to limit or abolish submarines is incomprehensible from the viewpoint of American welfare, because although she wants merely defensive armaments, nothing is more important, considering her extensive coastline, than the submarine. “If, in addition to the extensive air force we should have, and actually must and will have, we had an extensive submarine fleet, the United States would be practically immune from successful attack, even if our army and navy were not comparable with those of the others. “America’s objections to the submarine ore purely sentimental, due to the horror of war, aggravated by a method with which they are not familiar. Nevertheless, Americans must realise that, while exercising every effort to prevent war, they must be prepared to make their country Invincible.” “THEN IT IS DEAD” BRIAND ON THE COMPROMISE FRENCH PAPERS DIFFER (Australian and N.Z. Press Association) (United Service) LONDON, Sunday. A message from Paris says the Note from the United States Government was received at the Quai d’Orsay just, as MM. Berthelot and Briand (Foreign Minister) were leaving for the Spanish Embassy to lunch with King Alfonso. M. Berthelot took the Note and translated it while he was in the car with M. Briand. The latter is reported to have remarked: “Then the naval compromise is dead.” . The French newspapers are divided. Some express the opinion that the compromise will survive Mr. F. B. Kellogg’s anaesthetic, and others inscribe its epitaph. “Le Petit Parisien,” “Le Journal and “Le Petit Journal” say they favour a further exploration of the subject as hinted, in the last paragraph of the ** M?’ Jules Sauerwein, writing m “De Matin,” urges a joint Anglo-French reply which shall ensure America s Pa pertinax, writing in the “Echo de Paris,” expresses the opinion that the objection of the United States is directed at Britain’s advantages.. If America uses her available cruise tonnage, he says, and builds 10,000-ton ships Britain will be faced either with renouncing her equality or abandoning her proposed 70 ermsers for her Empire routes. He says secrecy maintained by Britain and to the terms of their compromise, which nourished the hostile Press campaign. the opposition of Germany and Russia and their obiecinterested in tho American Note which they believe may lead to a new ference on naval disarmament “TR*»rliner Ta geblatt sa> s me United States has built a golden bridge H” v n£r innd The Conservatives should be clad to bet let off so easily, in view of flic forthcoming general election. “FRANK, LUCID, FRIENDLY” papers examine reply SECRECY DENOUNCED British Official Wireless Reed. 11-57 a.m. RUGBY, Sunday. Most of the newspapers comment this morning on the United States reply to the Anglo-French proposals put forward to overcome the difficulties encountered at the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference AH the papers agree in reading the Note as frank, lucid and friendly. Many consider that it was plain fi om the first that, even though they had been regarded sympathetically by the Japanese and Italian Governments, to whom they were also submitted, the proposals would not be regarded favourably bv America, and that as tnen effectiveness depended upon general acceptance it was useless to put them £ °The main point which now has to ho considered is what future steps c IP be taken to discover a basis for the resumption of the work of the Preparatory Conference, which was the sole object of the Anglo-French initiative. One or two journals comment on the fact that the far-reaching and detailed scheme of limitation put forward by the British delegates at the Geneva \ a val Conference serus to have been forgotten. The British scheme, so far from leaving naval categories unlimited, actually proposed nine categories of warships, varying from capital ships down to submarines, river-boats, and even coastal motor-boats. Every type of surface and under-water craft car v? within the scope of the British linntation scheme. It is also recalled, in regard to the expression of American willingness to a-ree to a total abolition of submarines. that the British willingness to do likewise was first expressed at the Washington Conference and repeated at the Geneva Conference. A FRIENDLY NOTE “The Times" says that the generally friendly tone of the American Note should be fully recognised, and points out that it admits there may be room for some further exploration of" the question of naval armaments within the limits of the American view of naval necessities. The paper thinks “the very least that can bo said for the Anglo-French compromise is that it was a sincere effort to evade deadlock in the Preparatory Commission. There was a strong feeling that something had to

be done to further its work. and anxious exploration led in the end, by a process of mutual concession, to the compromise between Great Britain and France, as a basis for discussion by the other interested Powers. It is very certain that in all this transaction no offence was intended to the United States, nor could it ever have been assumed that the terms of the agreement were exclusive, or that they were not to be subject to modification in the course of the negotiations with other naval Powers. They were frankly intended as a basis for discussion, and with that object they were immediately submitted to the United States. SINCERITY IN ERROR “It is most unfortunate that what was sincerely intended as a contribution to a general solution of the disarmament problem should have been misunderstood (also quite sincerely) in the United States, and that the proposed basis for discussion should have been rejected almost unconditionally. The best that can be said in the meantime is that after all, in the American Note, there are clear indications of a desire for further consideration. The door is not closed.” The British Foreign Office explains that the matter must be considered by the Cabinet, and that the subject matter of the Note concerns not one but a number of departments. Nor are there any signs of the publication of the text of the Anglo-French agreement. The “Daily Telegraph” says that in the first place no copy was supplied ot the original Note addressed to the United States Government, to which the reply has now been issued. This is contrary to the usual procedure. An inquiry at the F jreign Office elicited the fact that there is no intention of publishing the British Note, at any rate at present. It was added that the American Note contains all tho facts. Secondly, says the “Telegraph," the United States Government never received the full text of the AngloFrench agreement, but Oxily a summary of it. Twice it asked for elucidations and explanations which might not have been necessary if the full text had been supplied. The United States Embassy in London issued the Note on its own initiative. It was not issued by the Foreign Office. The “Telegraph” expresses the opinion ' that the Anglo-French proposals have been killed by the American reply, as they were certain to be killed. HUMILIATING POSITION The “Daily Express” says the first precise details of the compromise appeared in a New York newspaper. Now the United States has again become the channel through which the British people learn of engagements entered into by the British Government. Meanwhile the latter remains obstinately silent. The “Sunday Times” says it hopes the Foreign Office never again will place the country in the humiliating position of receiving important diplomatic information from the Hearst Press. The “Observer” says the Note opens a new avenue for negotiation. It says it stands by the principle of equality and welcomes the proposal of a floating percentage. The British people will sweep away a Government which does not itself sweep away all obstacles to a final settlement on an equal basis.