NAVAL RATIO

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1921, Page 5

NAVAL RATIO

FRANCE’S REJECTION. SETBACK TO PROPOSALS, DEFENCE FLEET WANTED. NO AGGRESSIVE AIMS. The proposal for a reduction of navies has received a setback through the action of France in demanding a larger fleet than the scheme provides for. France is prepared to agree to a reduction of capital ships, but, owing to her defence requirements, she has declined to accept the proposed reduction of light cruisers, torpedo boats and submarines. By Telegraph—Press Ana Copyright. Received Dec. 21, 11.5 p.m. Washington, Dec. 20. After a meeting of the sub-committee on naval armaments to-day a com maul que wm issued with the correspondence between Mr. C. E. Hughes (America i and M. Briand (Premier of France) regarding France’s claim to ten capital ships.

Mr. Hughes’ letter, after reviewing the agreement arrived at between Britain, the United States, and Japan, points out that the sacrifices proposed iy the American Government have been

substantially made. The agreement, however, was dependent on an agreement between France and Italy. There was not the slightest difficulty in regard to the latter, provided there was a suitable understanding with France, thus the attitude of France determined the success or failure of the efforts to reduce naval armaments.

Mr. Hughes proceeded: “In dealing with Britain and Japan, the facts were taken as they are, without academic discussion of national needs and aspirations, which eould not be realised. The ratio of capital ships taken is that existing, and it is futile to secure a better one if the nations with abundant resources build in competition. There was a proposed reduction of 40 per cent, in the naval strength of the three Powers, and if France reduced in the Maine proportion her tonnage in capital ships would be fixed at 102.000 tons. This France was not asked to do. We are entirely willing that France should not scrap her dreadnoughts. There is not the slightest objection to allowing her a total of 175.000 tons, but if it be said that France desires greater relative strength, the obvious answer is that this is impossible of attainment.** PACT FAVORS FRANCE. It was also pointed out that if the proposed agreement is not made Britain and the United States would shortly have a million tons in navies more than six times greater than France, and France would not be in a position to better herself. The agreement tremen--1 ously favored France by reducing the navies of the Powers whose ships were actually in course of construction to bases more favorable to France than was otherwise obtainable, and really doubling the strength of the Frencu navy.

Mr. Hughes added: “I feel that the suggestion that France should build ten capital ships suggests a programme of such magnitude as would raise great difficulties; in fact, I regret to say, ifter canvassing the matter thoroughly, that I am compelled to conclude that It is not possible on this basis to carry through the agreement. I need not point out our great desire that the economic burden of armaments should t>e lifted. This is not against the interests of France. We express the hope that her industries and research will 3e devoted to economic recuperation and the enhancement of prosperity, rather ihan expended in building fighting ships. At this time, when we are anxious to aid France to a full recoverey of her economic life, it would be a disappointment to be advised that she contemplates putting hundreds of millions into battleships. I have spoken thus frankly because of my deep appreciation and friendship, and hope that the matter, which is perhaps the most critical yet reached at the Conference, may be satisfactorily adjusted.” FRANCE’S REPLY. M. Briand. in replying, said: “It is the will of the French Government to do everything compatible with the care of the vital interests of France in the question of naval armaments. The preoccupation of France is not from an offensive, but a uniquely defensive point of view. In regard to the tonnage of capital ships, that is. attacking ships, I have given instructions to the delegates in the sense you desire, and I am certain they will be sustH ied by my Parliament, but so far as defensive ships are concerned —light cruisers, torpedo boats and submarines —it will be impossible for the French Government to accept reductions corresponding to those which we accept for capital ships. I do not believe it is in the programme to deny a nation like France, which has a large extent of coasts and a great number of distant colonies, essential means of defending communications. I am certain you appreciate the effort at conciliation we are .making, and we ardently wish striking success at the Conference.”

AN IMPORTANT MEETING. TO DISCUSS NAVAL QUESTION. Received Dec. 21, 11.5 pjn. Washington, Dec. 20. At the persuasion of Mr. A. J. Balfour, the naval sub-committee has now been merged into a full committee of all the plenipotentiaries, which will take up the whole naval question at the next meeting on Thursday, with the assistance of experts who have been members of the sub-committee, thus indicating that matters are approaching a climax. This view is substantiated by the fact that they will not meet on Wednesday, giving ground for the belief that much preparation is neces-r-ry, and also that further cables are passing between Mr. C. E. Hughes and M. Briand. It is pointed out that M. Briand’s reservation regarding submarines and auxiliary craft is not in accordance with Mr Hughes' plan of a proportionate reduction in all naval armament,