Abolition of Submarines

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 896, 13 February 1930, Page 11

Abolition of Submarines

CLIPPING WAR BIRD’S WINGS

Naval Powers Not Yet Agreed

EXPERTS REPORT ON FLEET TONNAGE

British Official VSireZess RUGBY, Wednesday. THE five naval Powers are not agreed on the complete abolition of the submarine as an instrument of war, though the Naval Conference in London, in working toward a reconciliation of the views, is assisted by pungent Press comment. Experts have reported on the question of a basis for limiting naval armaments generally, and this is to be discussed by the delegations. The French Press suggests further disunity among the delegates.

Reed. 11.50 a.m. RUGBY, Wed. Commenting on yesterday’s submarine discussion at the Naval Conference the “Tim.es” says: “There is unanswerable force in the argument that the only way to humanise the submarine is to abolish it; hut even so, it will be something gained if definite rules are framed restricting its use, even to an unscrupulous Power.

“The existence of a definite code embodied in a formal treaty would be a deterrent. Before violating it, he would find a warning in the experience of Germany, remembering, as Mr. H. L. Stimson reminded the conference. that it was the threat of unrestricted submarine warfare which brought the United States into the war.”

The "Manchester Guardian” says: “If it were proposed to abolish the ocean-going submarine, not because it is a submarine but because it is an offensive weapon, the suggestion ought not to offend any Power which demands the submarine as a vital defensive weapon. The American delegation has put down the size of the individual submarine for discussion. That is the first point. If it is a defensive weapon let its size he reduced to suit its character.

“ There is a second point. Are not these swollen submarine forces, ranging from the 127 boats of the United States to the 57 of Italy, to be heavily reduced?” QUESTION OF ECONOMY

The “Daily Telegraph" thinks something has been gained by the declaration of the French, Italian and Japanese delegates of their desire to enter into an international undertaking, such as has not hitherto been formally completed, to use submarines against merchant shipping on strict conformity with the rules observed in surface warfare. But with the dismissal of the proposal of abolition goes the prospect of effecting an invaluable economy, and of diminishing the danger that lies in all extensive developments of armaments \ The first committee of the conference met this afternoon to consider the first report from the committee of experts set up on February 6. A communique states: “This report contained proposals for reconciling the alternative methods for the limitation of naval armaments by a system of global tonnage or by classification by categories, as well as a table setting out a plan for the classification of tonnage between the different classes of warship. After a discussion of the report, the first committee decided to forward it with their own observations to the heads of the delegations. “The committee submitted two resolutions on the question of submarines, which were referred to it for examination by the fourth plenary session to the committee of experts for examination and report.” The expert committee will meet again on Thursday morning to con-

sider the best method of dealing with special vessels outside the principal categories and vessels not subject to limitation. FLEET REDUCTION The report of the experts referred to in the communique is a long document. The framework of a category table which is incorporated in it leaves the figure of tonnage allotments tq each category to be filled in later. The categories are as follow: Capital ships, aircraft carriers, cruisers armed with Bin guns, cruisers armed with 6in guns, destroyers and submarines. In the case of France and Italy, (.here is no subdivision between cruisers, the lower cruiser classes and destroyers, thereby giving complete freedom of transfer as between these classes. Blanks are left in the table for the countries to come into the scheme as they may see fit. Asked whether it was proposed to scrap four ships of the Hawkins classes as part of the naval reductions, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. A. V. Alexander, said in the House of Commons that lie could not at this stage of the negotiations between the five Powers make any forecast of what possible reduction might result from them. Replying to another question, Mr. Alexander said the number of 50 cruisers considered necessary for the British Empire had been arrived at after full investigation, and it would, it was considered, meet all requirements for the period of the agreement which it was hoped would be reached

as a result of the Naval Conference. The number was .subject to a satisfactory outcome of that conference.

. IS EMPIRE DIVIDED? SOUTH AFRICAN DELEGATE’S SPEECH Reed. 11.30 a.m. LONDON, Wed. Around Mr. te Water’s cryptic utterance yesterday, the French Press again has woven a story of Empire disunity. The “Echo de Paris” says: “Mr. J. E. Fenton and Mr. T. M. Wilford, had they dared, would have ranged themselves behind their outspoken South African colleague.” Te Water, however, was merely suffering an overdose of tact and caution. It has been ascertained that what he tried to convey was that he was unable to see the logic of anyone trying to argue that submarines could be any good. Te Water told a correspondent that several requests had been made to him for an explanation of his speech, which seemed to surprise them. “There is nothing surprising about it,” he said. “Having read the other speeches, I decided to indicate what was in my mind. I think we would get much further by an objective, and not a subjective, examination of the problem . “The younger nations are anxious for peace. Coming here with a fresh outlook, we see the position in a better perspective than those on the spot. I endeavoured to speak as the representative of one of the younger nations, frankly expressing a fervent desire to abolish warfare.” FRANCE AND AMERICA It is learned that the first committee this afernoou will create a submarine committee with no other hope than approximating the Franco-American motions into a restrictive convention. The British spokesman confirmed the announcement that the experts had settled a great deal of the tonnage difficulties, but had left the others to be overcome by the first committee of the conference or the heads of the delegations. His admission that they had drawn up a table, and left blanks for figures, strengthened the view that the chief agreement relates to classifications. It is explained that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s and M. Tardieu’s discussion last evening was very general in its nature. The figures submitted were only tentative, with the idea of supplying a basis on which to begin the actual work of quotas. The American spokesman said, though the experts’ committee had prepared a tonnage formula, it was an exaggeration to say it had reached unanimity. It certainly had on one portion, but not on fiother. He denied that a Japanese proposal to neutralise the Philippines had ever come under the notice of the American delegation.

DEFINITE PROGRESS

STIMSON SATISFIED FRENCH REQUIREMENTS LONDON, Wednesday. The chief United States delegate to the Naval Conference, Mr. H. L. Stimson, issued a statement to the Press after the plenary session. In this he said a definite decision had been reached—not a tentative one—whereby the five Powers had agreed to restrict the use of submarines against merchant vessels to the same rales which apply to surface vessels. This single incident was worth the visit of the American delegation to London. It marked a step forward in a matter about which America once went to war. Mr. Stimson said he thought the debate had also shown a rising tide on the part of the nations for the eventual abolition of undersea craft. The happiest augury was that the motion to restrict the use of the submarine had come from the French delegation. M. Tardleu last evening explained to Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Alexander the requirements of the French Navy, in the matter of global tonnage. It is understood that France is ready to pledge herself not to exceed 724,000 tons. It is recalled that the AngloAmerican figure is 2,300,000.