Nations Compromise

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 888, 4 February 1930, Page 9

Nations Compromise

FLEETS’ ELASTIC TONNAGE Conference Down to Bedrock HEAVY TASK FOR THIS WEEK British Official T Wireless liecd. noon. RUGBY, Monday. AFTER a week-end spent in freedom from negotiation, the delegates to the Naval Conference were again in contact today. The main problem under consideration at the moment is the compromise between the method of naval limitation by categories of ships and by total tonnage. There arc indications that this week’s naval conference discussions on elastic fleet tonnages will produce the hardest nut of the whole agenda.

Broadly stated, the suggestion is that in certain classes of vessel, a fixed amount of tonnage may be transferred from one category to another. The amounts considered transferable and the constitution governing such an arrangement involve numerous and complicated considerations, which, it is understood will he discussed further at tomorrow’s meeting of the first committee, which embraces all the delegates to the conference. * So far promising progress has been made with the proposal, but the attitude of all the delegations requires to be defined upon it before any decision can be reached, and expressions of opinion are expected to take a more definite form in committee tomorrow. At the first committee meeting tomorrow, M. Leygues, Minister of Marine, will be the chief French delegate present. The main business of the meeting will be a discussion of the compromise proposals regarding the two methods of naval limtation, namely, by categories of ships or by total tonnage. BRITAIN'S PROPOSALS In this connection the British delegation lias now formulated a set of compromise proposals, which were circulated to the other delegations this afternoon, and will be considered at tomorrow’s meeting. These can be regarded as British contributions to the discussions Inaugurated last week by M. Massigli, the French expert. They follow largely the old British proposals, and the categories suggested in them, namely capital ships and aircraft carriers, cruisers subdivided into two classes —cruisers with eight-inch guns and those with guns of six-inch and lower calibre—destroyers and submarines. Regarding the small cruisers and destroyers, it is understood the proposals leave the way open for an arrangement whereby a complete transfer to 100 per cent, might be made between cruisers of six-inch guns and less calibre, and the destroyer class. This elasticity is de-

signed to enable certain countries to fulfil special requirements in these classes of ships. BASIS FOR DISCUSSION It is believed that compromise will be found to form a satisfactory basis for further discussion, and that the conference will be able soon to devote itself to other problems. This evening the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, met Mr. H. D. Stimson and other American delegates in the Prime Minister’s room at the House of Commons. A Press Association message says in the French suggestion there would be one scale for Britain, America and Japan, and another for France and Italy. It is safe to say the former trio will_ oppose any application of tho French idea to transfer tonnage from battleships to eight-inch gun cruisers, which would mean giving France and Italy the freedom of interchange over the whole range of ships. The major Powers are intent on confining the elasticity to six-inch gun cruisers and downwards, which would cover both commerce protection cruisers and submarines, to which the French mind is apparently strongly wedded. Behind the idea of a separate Continental scale is the right to transfer 20 per cent., while Britain, America and Japan would be limited to 10 per cent. Such wider elasticity naturally raises the point that Fra nee and Italy, by building large cruisers, could upset the balance of Anglo-American-Japanese reckonings, and similarly might embarrass Britain, whose commerce protection needs to extend beyond the mere Mediterranean and African interests. France hitherto has not discussed the nature of her claims upon submarines. It is felt this problem must arise immediately, because the quotas cannot be tackled till it is seen what strength in submarines France and Japan desire. AIR FORCE REDUCED BRITAIN’S ARMAMENT CUT COMPARISON WITH POWERS LONDON, Monday. The “Daily Telegraph” follows up its disclosures about the cancellation of orders for the construction of British warships with details of the Government's pacific intentions in regard to the Air Service.-

According to the paper, the Royal Air Force estimates also have been made the occasion for a disarmament gesture. Those for the coming year only provide for a fraction of the addition to the force contemplated by the defence standard framed in 1923. The article continues:—“The intention is to provide only one new fighter squadron, making 13 in all, whereas under the 1923 programme the total should be brought to 18. In spite of the fact that 34 regular and non-regular bombing squadrons will be required at the end of 1930, we shall only have 24 bombing squadrons. Yet the programme for home air defence was regarded as the bare minimum, and only a fraction of the force can be applied to an offensive against a foreign enemy. “Whereas France has 1,350 first-line aircraft, and Italy 1,000, Britain only has 772 on the sea and on the land.”