Naval Limits

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 899, 17 February 1930, Page 9

Naval Limits

GREATER OPTIMISM SHOWN

French Memorandum Discussed

PROBLEMS STILL TO BE FACED

British Official 'Wireless Received 11 a.m. RUGBY, Sunday. THE principal delegates to the Naval Conference are again . spending the week-end out of London and, on this occasion, the proceedings of the last few days have given them ample material to review and study in comparative leisure. The French memorandum which, today, mainly monopolises Press comment—much of it being distinctly critical—has been, during the last two days, the subject of conversations between the chief British, American and French delegates, and these will probably be resumed Tuesday evening.

Press discussion of the French memorandum turns on a question as to whether the figures and proposals it contains are elastic or not. It Is not denied that, as the French proposals stand, they “raise difficulties” for Britain and America and this, it is assumed, has not been concealed from the French delegates by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. H. L. Stimson. There is, however, a considerable measure of optimism iu conference circles, and M. Tardieu is credited with the first prophecy regarding the date of its termination. He is stated to have guessed that it will end with a treaty signed on March 10.

One slight misunderstanding arising out of the French memorandum has been removed. POINT CLEARED UP

A document affirmed that war between France and Great Britain and France and the United States is “unthinkable,” but did not, in that connection, specifically mention Japan and Italy. It is now pointed out that these two countries were not mentioned solely because the memorandum In that passage was commenting only upon suggestions and figures then available, namely, those of Britain and America.

Referring to the proceedings at the Naval Conference, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, said that the delegates were now deep in detail and directly confronted with difficulties that had to be solved. Decision naturally came slowly, and there had been some public disappointment, hut such incidents were connected with every international conference. What was more important was the manner in which the difficulties had been approached. The British Government believed that the peoples of the respective countries were entitled to ask for and to receive a substantial reduction in armament burdens, and every delegation to the conference was convinced that agreement was essential to the vital needs of the nation it represented. SUBMARINE ABOLITION The abolition of the submarine had already been • discussed and it was found that, whereas at the Washington Conference nine years ago Britain alone favoured its abolition, other nations had now moved toward that viewpoint. If events proved that the conference was unable to come to such an agreement, the movement for the stringent limitation and eventual abolition of such craft would have received powerful impetus. The same might safely be said of monster capital ships which now constituted so great a part of the burden of naval armaments. The British Government in declaring plainly that it desired an allround reduction of capital ships, had been inspired by the hope that in the near future it might become possible to abolish them altogether.

SHOCK TO PARITY

“AMERICA’S ASTOUNDING PROGRAMME”

OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM LONDON, Sunday. Mr. J. L. Garvin, in an outspoken article in the “Observer,” says the Naval Conference has come to grips with a vengeance and is giving shocks to the Peace Pact and parity. Firstly Anglo-American accord is strained by America’s desire to build the world’s largest and most destructive floating fortress, secondly Japan is claiming submarine equality with the British Empire, and thirdly the United States has put forward an astounding programme for creating her a lirst-class naval Power in addition to being the world’s supreme military and air Power. Britain, on the grounds of parity, does not object to America building a super-Rodney, says the writer, but the proposition is a set-back to the whole Cause of disarmament. In view of the French programme, which entails submarine superiority, Britain

would be foroed to increase her destroyers. “Is the dreary pre-war system of competitive armaments to be continued even by the signatories of the Kellogg Pact?” asks Mr. Garvin. “The conferencs will fail if statesmen do not rise above technical details and insist upon a change of mind, habit and outlook.” German naval circles apparently are keenly following the work of the Five Powers Naval Conference. They comment on what they term the “hypocrisy” of France’s alarm over the “pocket battleship,” Ersatz Preussen, and allege that in the next five years France is likely to build four 15,000ton super-cruisers more heavily armed than the new German vessel in question. The German Foreign Office describes the Introduction of the Ersatz Preussen into the discussions in London as a “poisoned bullet.” The “Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung” says: “If M. Tardieu’s statement Is intended as a hint to Germany not to continue building “pocket battleships,” it will fall on deaf ears. The German Ministry of Defence is determined to build to the limits of the Treaty of Versailles, In spite of the opposition of the Socialists.”

PACT NOT TRUSTED

CRITICISM OF POWERS’ DISCUSSIONS

TALK PRESUPPOSES WAR Reed. 9.40 a.m. LONDON, Sunday. “The Times,” in an editorial, says that the five principal naval Powers are engaged in discussing- armaments in terms of war fact. It cannot be escaped that the whole trend of the discussions presupposes that the respective fleets will be engaged against one another. The ’reason is obvious. The Kellogg Pact is not trusted. It remains a pfous resolution without machinery. The whole thing rests with America. They originated the pact—will they back it with deeds? Either the nations must show they mean what they say about peace, or the discussi at St. James’s Palace must becorrre but the base for a new race in armaments that is bound to end in war. Everything depends on America. Will Mr. Hoover make a momentous and historic appeal to his countrymen? We believe they would respond.

FRENCH PESSIMISM

NEED FOR MUTUAL AGREEMENTS ITALY’S “LOYAL DESIRE" PARIS, Saturday. All the-French newspapers reflect disappointment and pessimism at the progress and prospects of the Naval Conference. Everywhere the need of guarantees of security is emphasised. “Le Temps” says it is time the Powers gave up hopes of duping France. If there is a real desire to down navies, let them show their confidence by signing mutual political agreements. A message from Rome says the “Tribuna” remarks: “It will be interesting to see how far the conference succeeds in abating the French demands. Just as the Washington Conference resulted in the recognition of America as a naval power, the London Conference is called upon to recognise France as navally equal to Britain and America. Only Italy has a sincere, loyal desire to reduce armaments.”

M. TARDIEU ILL BOUT OF INFLUENZA Reed. 10 a.m. LONDON, Sunday. A message from Paris states that M. Tardieu is suffering from influenza and his return to London is postponed.